This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
HFRXEMN Hits Low Point For 2009
The HFRX Equity Market Neutral Index has hit a new low for the year. In other news, Goldman likely set to report record number of $100+ million trading days for the quarter.
hat tip J Bravo
»
- 4098 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
what is HFRXEMN? I clicked it but no definition exists..
thanks.
proxy for returns of market neutral funds (i.e. liquidity providers). As Goldman's dominance has progressed through the year it has taken away from others share/returns
Thanks for the answer. I had been looking at that one cross-eyed for a while now. Huge deal....now that I understand...Definitely something that also should, be getting a whole lot more attention besides ZH.
ok, thanks, I hate to sound dumb ( but you think I would be used to it by now ), I'm not sure I'm grasping this. If I look at the chart there is a huge spike which would corrolate to the Nov. dumper.. since then it has steadily gone down. Does this indicate, all the little guys getting out in Nov, and what is left is a 70% of the trades being done by 2% of the players?
yup
compare the inverse of this chart with this one: http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/GS%2BNYSE.jpg
You seem to be everywhere Tyler so you have probably seen this but in case you haven't (and it seems right up your alley) I wanted to share...S. Roach on China
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/42d38b2c-7bd6-11de-9772-00144feabdc0.html
So they will be trading with themselves soon!
"So they will be trading with themselves soon!"
Interesting statement. I was just reading a Chapter in The Great Crash: 1929 by John Kenneth Galbraith which was about Goldman, Sachs and their initial venture into becoming a publicly traded company (see Chapter: In Goldman, Sachs we trust).
It seems that Goldman, Sachs Trading Corporation had been trading shares to itself and to friendly parties in order to bump up the price of their shares before selling to the public. Not only this, it formed two investment trusts that were public companies in less than a year and sold shares of the investment trusts again to itself and friendly parties in order to bump up the price of the trust shares before selling to the public.
Selling something to yourself is not wealth creation.
Short excerpt from the chapter:
Senator Couzens: Did Goldman, Sachs and Company organize the Godman Sachs Trading Corporation?
Mr. Sachs: Yes, sir.
Senator Couzens: And it sold its stock to the public?
Mr. Sachs: A portion of it. The firm invested originally in 10 per cent of the entire issue for the sum of $10,000,000.
Senator Couzens: And the other 90 per cent was sold to the public?
Mr. Sachs: Yes, sir.
Senator Couzens: At what price?
Mr. Sachs: At 104. That is the old stock... the stock was split two for one.
Senator Couzens: And what is the price of the stock now?
Mr. Sachs: Approximately 1.75.
Yes I read that book and a lot of what happened then, has happened/is happening again
The best thing that could happen to GS is if everyone else quit playing, that way they could corner the market and run it up to a bazillion. Paper profits galore, huge bonuses, and no more selling ever!
That is interesting, how one would read the VAR within such market?
" read the VAR" ... you mean the one from which Goldman has a special exemption?
Then if GS = US state gvnmt why such bashing on the executor of lower task?
But if GS is US gvnmt arm why such discrepancy of remuneration with equally brillant state servants?
equally brillant.......
Oh, that was sarcasm, I get it now.
I wouldn't be making a 100+ t.d. call. Shanghai's index fell 5%, last time it has happened in the middle of a rally (Feb 2007), it was precursor for a PARTY! (not that i expect history to repeat itself 1 to 1) ANyway, I ve got a question on MN funds. How are they going around the naked short selling ban? Are they using puts & calls rather than selling shorts, posting the margin and buying longs on proceeds?
Maybe this is a stupid question, but here goes
Are GS results included in the index? If so, does statement make any sense?
"As Goldman's dominance has progressed through the year it has taken away from others share/returns"
Please help a Newbie: how does HFRXEMN differ from HFN's "Market Neutral Equity Average", which has 231 funds and is up 2.87% YTD?
So the proxy for returns of market neutral funds has declined. That's a pretty big leap to link it to Goldman's so called dominance.
Correlation does not equal causation.