That's just a measure of how big those crops are compared to others. Absolute numbers are not a fair comparison. In terms of chemicals per calorie those three don't even make the top ten.
The returns are on the premium paid for options (or margin), not the notional (which is where fees are paid). That $4bn fund is counting its performance on only $40 million of invested capital (of the $4bn). So they are up 3600% on $40 million.
Universa’s model is they take 3.5% of a portfolio value per year and use it to buy puts over the course of a year. So at any time, maybe they have 30-60 basis points of the portfolio in puts. So they are up 3600% on 30 basis points or like 12%.
"Spitznagel included a chart in his letter showing that a portfolio invested 96.7% in the S&P 500 and 3.3% in Universa’s fund would have been unscathed in March, a month in which the U.S. equity benchmark fell 12.4%."
"The same portfolio would have produced a compounded return of 11.5% a year since March of 2008 versus 7.9% for the index."
2.6% per annum is a lot of outperformance, albeit not quite as eye popping as 3600%.
In layman's terms, it's like saying when your life insurance pays out $1M you have a 2500000% return on that month's $40 payment. It's not wrong, but if that's the only number you look at you'll always conclude that buying insurance is the road to riches.
This is generally true, but that TV show "American Greed" has shown a number of folks that tried to get the riches without actually dying. I wonder how many have pulled it off.
My impression is Universa is in effect, a product that aggregates intelligent short positions based on their assessment of tail risks, which other mainstream managers use as a hedging instrument. Their %3.5 management fee is a multiple of the 1:10 that other funds have been forced to take, and almost double the 2:20 model of pre-08 hedge funds.
Speculating, but the kind of fund I would imagine buys their product would be in the 5bn+ AUM range, who has broad exposure to a bunch of mark-to-unicorn venture backed startups in their book.
It'd be like %2 Universa, %60 index funds, and %20 buying sand hill dead dogs and F rounds as the price of admission for participation in their next fresh funds, %10 unicorn, %4 on something socially earnest and backed by someone politically connected for social climbing, a management fee, and spoilage. How close is that?
Universa being the tool that offsets the tide rolling out on those other bets.
But seriously, not charging SOME sort of fee on capital that is likely to be uninvested on a short-term horizon is giving investors a pretty valuable free option. I'm assuming they have a flexible mandate and are able to invest more given some sort of market conditions. Gauging that capacity and properly modeling trade sizes is extremely important for a strategy like this and is not free.
It's more a way to drive a point home. Taleb has been shouting this point for more then a decade. A portfolio without insurance is no portfolio. His arguing is that institutions that are to big too fail hardly ever insure themselves in this way, using optimistic lineair growth models without hedging themselves against extreme and unpredictable risk. And then when they go bankrupt they present the bill to the tax payer.
It seems necessary to make a point here since these models haven't changed for decades even though they have clearly failed many times.
> And then when they go bankrupt they present the bill to the tax payer.
... and get bailed out - which means that they are using a perfectly rational and profitable investment.
> these models haven't changed for decades even though they have clearly failed many times.
They may have failed you and the economy at large, but with very few exceptions (e.g. Lehman), they have not failed the people who are running them, which is why they keep using them.
Yes sort of. This is the obvious that bothers many.
Of course there is also a deeper culture here. For instance that students in big name universities learn standard macro economics. And then when they come to the institutions this is their default mode of thinking, even though they don't directly benefit from this. But it might be hard to reach to top of many of these institutions as a contrarian, so longterm there is not much incentive to go against established norms.
isn’t that like saying my $1 billion portfolio had a 3600% return because I invested $100 on a penny stock that went up 3600% and the rest of it was in cash.
Especially if they are buying puts on a regular basis and then cherry picking one particular period that paid off well.
It's like randomly picking a penny stock each year and then suddenly it's up 3600%. That's not some investing magic, it's just you doing the same thing and suddenly being right.
The hedge fund in question DID provide those returns. The portfolio given at the end was an example of how you use the hedge fund as essentially a financial product for a larger portfolio.
That's not what the article says, though. Spitznagel said his clients had a return of 4144% year to date. He refers to the fund not positions. Knowing Spitznagel he isn't prone to pulling an "Ackman". He doesn't need to.
So in a way this also only works when there are few people following the strategy, right? Not everyone can have puts on the same thing as someone had to be on the other end of the deal.
For more investor funds. Also, his style of investing is supposed to make a killing during times like this- but when you are flat to down a few percent for all the boring years in between black swan events, things don't look great.
There is also ego and prestige, and Taleb seems to desire both to a great degree.
The problem is not Taleb's trading method, it would provide a great return if the US had free markets...what the fed is currently doing is more akin to communism, bailing out and buying up all the essential industries.
While I agree that the Fed may be overplaying their hand, I disagree that Taleb has an otherwise outperforming strategy. The cost of hedging against black swan events is not zero, and has increased substantially since the financial crisis- at least in part by his own work to increase awareness of them! Volatility used to be greatly underpriced by the market, and while that may still be true, its not nearly true to the extent it was pre-crisis.
We are not out of the crisis yet. Taleb has been banging this drum for decades, and profited handsomely in 2008, and IIRC also in 2001 and 1998. His lesson was not appreciated by the industry at large during those decades - and it is likely that a couple of years after the end of this crisis (whenever that may be, anywhere from a few month to over a decade), hedging black swans will be cheap again.
Their business model is investing on behalf of their clients as a hedge against tail risk. They need people to know about their success in order to remain in business. They've been going strong for at least 12 years.
12 years is not even a full market cycle. How about 30 years. this method would have done very badly from 2000-2008 due to lack of sudden crashes combined with weak market performance. This incurs losses on both the equity part and the hedge.
Remember, the dotcom crash had huge drops across almost all of the tech sector for a few years straight.
Plus, 9/11 happened in that time frame and took out travel stocks.
It is those huge drops that Universa counts on.
So he would had done well - probably on the level of a Bobby Axelrod (yes, I know Bobby is fictional, but he's a great composite character of raw trading instinct based on his 9/11 trades).
Taleb and Spitznagel have been investing based on this philosophy since 1999. The huge gains Taleb made in the 2007-2008 crisis are what made him famous and forced people to take his ideas seariously.
They can only report results on the period of time they've been in business, but so far their strategy seems to have held up for about 15-20 years.
They seem to know what they're doing, and given the stakes, have likely thought about any pitfalls you or I could imagine, along with many others we couldn't imagine.
That's true. I wonder if the actual objective is insurance. In the good times you lose out. But you don't mind because it's insurance against bigger losses when things go south. As an example it is reported that the organisers of the Wimbledon tennis tournament have spent 34million on insurance premiums over a period of time. Due to covid-19 they are cancelling the tournament and getting a payout of 100million+. Probably not priced correctly but you get the point. In the good years they're hemorrhaging money...
>Even the Medallion fund doesn't do anything secret, they just win 50.7% of a lot of bets.
lol no comparison between the two. Medallion has the strongest NDA in exsitance. After 30 years no one knows anything about it. Taleb writes books because more money in books than his method. Simons will never write a book about his method because his method actually works. It is possible that Taleb has a secret strategy but the method he is selling to the public is not going to make you rich, nor will it generate alpha.
We built Fomo to make it easy to display recent actions (Github pushes, reviews, recent purchases, website visits, etc.) on your website. We're launching version 1 today along with our API that allows you to pass any data into Fomo's notification tool.
Best investment (outside of investing in myself) was buying into Ethereum when they first announced it. In the 2-3 years since, that's been up nearly 50x.
I've only invested in two things outside of my 401k: Yahoo and Ethereum. Yahoo at $50, and Ethereum at $16. I am horrible at investing. I spent $200 on Yahoo and $40 on Ethereum, since I was just messing around, but damn do I feel discouraged.
Investing in spaces you don't know or don't have strong hunches is difficult. I'd recommend just putting money in index funds unless you feel really, really strongly about an investment and/or have some special knowledge of the space or company.
Though, in the long run, losing $250 while getting your feet wet in investing isn't that bad.
Basically because we were 1st-time authors. We hired a professional editor and paid him to edit our first draft. Then, we shared that draft with readers and it just wasn't good enough. So, we had to go back, re-edit the entire thing, and then pay for the editor to go over it all again.
Pretty frustrating, and the reason why editing was likely 2-3x more than it should have been. However, it also resulted in a much better book.
I'm around $5500 a month total from 2 Udemy courses and a launching Traction book. It breaks down like this (all links below):
My SQL for Marketers course on Udemy does about $1500 a month, and has been pretty steady since launching the course on Udemy in late April. This takes almost no maintenance, though I am starting to work on improving it in response to student feedback.
My other course, Productivity for Mac Users, is a simpler keyboard shortcuts one can use to be more productive on Mac. This one makes $400-800 per month, though average over the lifetime (launched in May) has been around $500.
Lastly, we launched Traction book 3 months ago, and it continues to sell really well. Even after splitting with my co-author, I make about $3500 a month from that. You can see full numbers breakdown in the blog post we wrote summing up our launch.
