Chelsea Clinton's husband closing Greek-focused hf after losing 90% of investors asstes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A hedge fund that invests in greek debt and recruits investors who want to invest in greek debt is not doing a disservice to people if greek debt turns out to be a bad bet.

Sure.

I don't know why this isn't obvious to you. If you are a qualified investor, you should know this. If Vanguard or Fidelity offers you the chance to invest in a precious metals index fund and precious metals go down, are Vanguard and Fidelity negligent?

Very funny, Clintontroll.

Vanguard charges 0.1% or so.

Hedge funds, like Clinton's SOL, charge 2% of the whole amount invested, plus 20% of profit.

Notice some slight difference? Why do you think they charge that?

There are no index funds for buying into greek debt. It does cost more to get into asset classes not available to the small investor. If you don't buy into that it's fine. But the fiduciary issues are no less for an index fund than for a hedge fund because their fees are lower.

Faacinating. Tell us, what were the fiduciary responsibilities of a manager who lost 90% of the capital invested?

A fiduciary duty is a duty to act 100% in the interest of their principals. Failure to make money is not a violation of fiduciary duty.

You don't sound like someone who has much experience investing.

And you sound remarkably like a paid clinton troll. Your spin may work for some but it's just hilariously wrong for those of us who actually deal with hedge funds. But hey, your responses keep the thread alive so you keep your job.

[Anonymous]

Agree PP. people who work on campaigns generally majored in political science or English. They are adroit at making snide remarks that sound clever but they have no substantive knowledge of anything

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A hedge fund that invests in greek debt and recruits investors who want to invest in greek debt is not doing a disservice to people if greek debt turns out to be a bad bet.

Sure.

I don't know why this isn't obvious to you. If you are a qualified investor, you should know this. If Vanguard or Fidelity offers you the chance to invest in a precious metals index fund and precious metals go down, are Vanguard and Fidelity negligent?

Very funny, Clintontroll.

Vanguard charges 0.1% or so.

Hedge funds, like Clinton's SOL, charge 2% of the whole amount invested, plus 20% of profit.

Notice some slight difference? Why do you think they charge that?

There are no index funds for buying into greek debt. It does cost more to get into asset classes not available to the small investor. If you don't buy into that it's fine. But the fiduciary issues are no less for an index fund than for a hedge fund because their fees are lower.

Faacinating. Tell us, what were the fiduciary responsibilities of a manager who lost 90% of the capital invested?

A fiduciary duty is a duty to act 100% in the interest of their principals. Failure to make money is not a violation of fiduciary duty.

You don't sound like someone who has much experience investing.

And you sound remarkably like a paid clinton troll. Your spin may work for some but it's just hilariously wrong for those of us who actually deal with hedge funds. But hey, your responses keep the thread alive so you keep your job.

+1. Frankly, I don't get why some Clinton supporter would care so much about this as to enter into obviously embarrassing discourse.

I respect Clinton more than either Sanders or Trump, but still be surprised at the 90% principal loss we are discussing here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A hedge fund that invests in greek debt and recruits investors who want to invest in greek debt is not doing a disservice to people if greek debt turns out to be a bad bet.

Sure.

I don't know why this isn't obvious to you. If you are a qualified investor, you should know this. If Vanguard or Fidelity offers you the chance to invest in a precious metals index fund and precious metals go down, are Vanguard and Fidelity negligent?

Very funny, Clintontroll.

Vanguard charges 0.1% or so.

Hedge funds, like Clinton's SOL, charge 2% of the whole amount invested, plus 20% of profit.

Notice some slight difference? Why do you think they charge that?

There are no index funds for buying into greek debt. It does cost more to get into asset classes not available to the small investor. If you don't buy into that it's fine. But the fiduciary issues are no less for an index fund than for a hedge fund because their fees are lower.

Faacinating. Tell us, what were the fiduciary responsibilities of a manager who lost 90% of the capital invested?

A fiduciary duty is a duty to act 100% in the interest of their principals. Failure to make money is not a violation of fiduciary duty.

You don't sound like someone who has much experience investing.

And you sound remarkably like a paid clinton troll. Your spin may work for some but it's just hilariously wrong for those of us who actually deal with hedge funds. But hey, your responses keep the thread alive so you keep your job.

+1. Frankly, I don't get why some Clinton supporter would care so much about this as to enter into obviously embarrassing discourse.

I respect Clinton more than either Sanders or Trump, but still be surprised at the 90% principal loss we are discussing here.

Me to. I wonder what really happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A hedge fund that invests in greek debt and recruits investors who want to invest in greek debt is not doing a disservice to people if greek debt turns out to be a bad bet.

Sure.

I don't know why this isn't obvious to you. If you are a qualified investor, you should know this. If Vanguard or Fidelity offers you the chance to invest in a precious metals index fund and precious metals go down, are Vanguard and Fidelity negligent?

Very funny, Clintontroll.

Vanguard charges 0.1% or so.

Hedge funds, like Clinton's SOL, charge 2% of the whole amount invested, plus 20% of profit.

Notice some slight difference? Why do you think they charge that?

There are no index funds for buying into greek debt. It does cost more to get into asset classes not available to the small investor. If you don't buy into that it's fine. But the fiduciary issues are no less for an index fund than for a hedge fund because their fees are lower.

Faacinating. Tell us, what were the fiduciary responsibilities of a manager who lost 90% of the capital invested?

A fiduciary duty is a duty to act 100% in the interest of their principals. Failure to make money is not a violation of fiduciary duty.

You don't sound like someone who has much experience investing.

And you sound remarkably like a paid clinton troll. Your spin may work for some but it's just hilariously wrong for those of us who actually deal with hedge funds. But hey, your responses keep the thread alive so you keep your job.

+1. Frankly, I don't get why some Clinton supporter would care so much about this as to enter into obviously embarrassing discourse.

I respect Clinton more than either Sanders or Trump, but still be surprised at the 90% principal loss we are discussing here.

Me to. I wonder what really happened.

What do you mean, "what really happened"? The entire fund was based on a bet that Greece would pull out of their debt crisis. It didn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A hedge fund that invests in greek debt and recruits investors who want to invest in greek debt is not doing a disservice to people if greek debt turns out to be a bad bet.

Sure.

I don't know why this isn't obvious to you. If you are a qualified investor, you should know this. If Vanguard or Fidelity offers you the chance to invest in a precious metals index fund and precious metals go down, are Vanguard and Fidelity negligent?

Very funny, Clintontroll.

Vanguard charges 0.1% or so.

Hedge funds, like Clinton's SOL, charge 2% of the whole amount invested, plus 20% of profit.

Notice some slight difference? Why do you think they charge that?

There are no index funds for buying into greek debt. It does cost more to get into asset classes not available to the small investor. If you don't buy into that it's fine. But the fiduciary issues are no less for an index fund than for a hedge fund because their fees are lower.

Faacinating. Tell us, what were the fiduciary responsibilities of a manager who lost 90% of the capital invested?

A fiduciary duty is a duty to act 100% in the interest of their principals. Failure to make money is not a violation of fiduciary duty.

You don't sound like someone who has much experience investing.

And you sound remarkably like a paid clinton troll. Your spin may work for some but it's just hilariously wrong for those of us who actually deal with hedge funds. But hey, your responses keep the thread alive so you keep your job.

+1. Frankly, I don't get why some Clinton supporter would care so much about this as to enter into obviously embarrassing discourse.

I respect Clinton more than either Sanders or Trump, but still be surprised at the 90% principal loss we are discussing here.

Me to. I wonder what really happened.

What do you mean, "what really happened"? The entire fund was based on a bet that Greece would pull out of their debt crisis. It didn't.

Very true, but by the time they bought all that Greek debt it was already heavily discounted. Losing 90% in those conditions is quite a feat.

[Anonymous]

Ask the wealth managers who invested in behalf of their clients. My guess is most won't miss the money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A hedge fund that invests in greek debt and recruits investors who want to invest in greek debt is not doing a disservice to people if greek debt turns out to be a bad bet.

Sure.

I don't know why this isn't obvious to you. If you are a qualified investor, you should know this. If Vanguard or Fidelity offers you the chance to invest in a precious metals index fund and precious metals go down, are Vanguard and Fidelity negligent?

Very funny, Clintontroll.

Vanguard charges 0.1% or so.

Hedge funds, like Clinton's SOL, charge 2% of the whole amount invested, plus 20% of profit.

Notice some slight difference? Why do you think they charge that?

There are no index funds for buying into greek debt. It does cost more to get into asset classes not available to the small investor. If you don't buy into that it's fine. But the fiduciary issues are no less for an index fund than for a hedge fund because their fees are lower.

Faacinating. Tell us, what were the fiduciary responsibilities of a manager who lost 90% of the capital invested?

A fiduciary duty is a duty to act 100% in the interest of their principals. Failure to make money is not a violation of fiduciary duty.

You don't sound like someone who has much experience investing.

And you sound remarkably like a paid clinton troll. Your spin may work for some but it's just hilariously wrong for those of us who actually deal with hedge funds. But hey, your responses keep the thread alive so you keep your job.

+1. Frankly, I don't get why some Clinton supporter would care so much about this as to enter into obviously embarrassing discourse.

I respect Clinton more than either Sanders or Trump, but still be surprised at the 90% principal loss we are discussing here.

Me to. I wonder what really happened.

What do you mean, "what really happened"? The entire fund was based on a bet that Greece would pull out of their debt crisis. It didn't.

Very true, but by the time they bought all that Greek debt it was already heavily discounted. Losing 90% in those conditions is quite a feat.

A). Who knows if they bought debt? The only thing that's reported is that this teeny tiny fund took a long position on Greek debt. Maybe they bought debt. Maybe they sold protection. Maybe they bought synthetic debt and one of the underlying asset markers tanked.

B). Even if they bought deeply discounted debt, that doesn't preclude it tanking more.

C). Really, the only thing that's remarkable is own such a young trio got backing for such a small group of funds to begin with. While this fund was only 25 (or 40) million, their group only had 400 million in the aggregate. That figure is pretty low and doesn't really suggest a whole lot of confidence in them by investors. It is a nice way to guarantee a presidential candidate's daughter/family has a nice NYC income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A hedge fund that invests in greek debt and recruits investors who want to invest in greek debt is not doing a disservice to people if greek debt turns out to be a bad bet.

Sure.

I don't know why this isn't obvious to you. If you are a qualified investor, you should know this. If Vanguard or Fidelity offers you the chance to invest in a precious metals index fund and precious metals go down, are Vanguard and Fidelity negligent?

Very funny, Clintontroll.

Vanguard charges 0.1% or so.

Hedge funds, like Clinton's SOL, charge 2% of the whole amount invested, plus 20% of profit.

Notice some slight difference? Why do you think they charge that?

There are no index funds for buying into greek debt. It does cost more to get into asset classes not available to the small investor. If you don't buy into that it's fine. But the fiduciary issues are no less for an index fund than for a hedge fund because their fees are lower.

Faacinating. Tell us, what were the fiduciary responsibilities of a manager who lost 90% of the capital invested?

A fiduciary duty is a duty to act 100% in the interest of their principals. Failure to make money is not a violation of fiduciary duty.

You don't sound like someone who has much experience investing.

And you sound remarkably like a paid clinton troll. Your spin may work for some but it's just hilariously wrong for those of us who actually deal with hedge funds. But hey, your responses keep the thread alive so you keep your job.

+1. Frankly, I don't get why some Clinton supporter would care so much about this as to enter into obviously embarrassing discourse.

I respect Clinton more than either Sanders or Trump, but still be surprised at the 90% principal loss we are discussing here.

Me to. I wonder what really happened.

What do you mean, "what really happened"? The entire fund was based on a bet that Greece would pull out of their debt crisis. It didn't.

Very true, but by the time they bought all that Greek debt it was already heavily discounted. Losing 90% in those conditions is quite a feat.

A). Who knows if they bought debt? The only thing that's reported is that this teeny tiny fund took a long position on Greek debt. Maybe they bought debt. Maybe they sold protection. Maybe they bought synthetic debt and one of the underlying asset markers tanked.

B). Even if they bought deeply discounted debt, that doesn't preclude it tanking more.

C). Really, the only thing that's remarkable is own such a young trio got backing for such a small group of funds to begin with. While this fund was only 25 (or 40) million, their group only had 400 million in the aggregate. That figure is pretty low and doesn't really suggest a whole lot of confidence in them by investors. It is a nice way to guarantee a presidential candidate's daughter/family has a nice NYC income.

Finally, signs of intelligent life on DCUM

A and B). True

C). Indeed. There are several surprising things that came to light in this implosion, so I expect we'll see some good analysis at some point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A hedge fund that invests in greek debt and recruits investors who want to invest in greek debt is not doing a disservice to people if greek debt turns out to be a bad bet.

Sure.

I don't know why this isn't obvious to you. If you are a qualified investor, you should know this. If Vanguard or Fidelity offers you the chance to invest in a precious metals index fund and precious metals go down, are Vanguard and Fidelity negligent?

Very funny, Clintontroll.

Vanguard charges 0.1% or so.

Hedge funds, like Clinton's SOL, charge 2% of the whole amount invested, plus 20% of profit.

Notice some slight difference? Why do you think they charge that?

There are no index funds for buying into greek debt. It does cost more to get into asset classes not available to the small investor. If you don't buy into that it's fine. But the fiduciary issues are no less for an index fund than for a hedge fund because their fees are lower.

Faacinating. Tell us, what were the fiduciary responsibilities of a manager who lost 90% of the capital invested?

A fiduciary duty is a duty to act 100% in the interest of their principals. Failure to make money is not a violation of fiduciary duty.

You don't sound like someone who has much experience investing.

And you sound remarkably like a paid clinton troll. Your spin may work for some but it's just hilariously wrong for those of us who actually deal with hedge funds. But hey, your responses keep the thread alive so you keep your job.

+1. Frankly, I don't get why some Clinton supporter would care so much about this as to enter into obviously embarrassing discourse.

I respect Clinton more than either Sanders or Trump, but still be surprised at the 90% principal loss we are discussing here.

Me to. I wonder what really happened.

What do you mean, "what really happened"? The entire fund was based on a bet that Greece would pull out of their debt crisis. It didn't.

Very true, but by the time they bought all that Greek debt it was already heavily discounted. Losing 90% in those conditions is quite a feat.

A). Who knows if they bought debt? The only thing that's reported is that this teeny tiny fund took a long position on Greek debt. Maybe they bought debt. Maybe they sold protection. Maybe they bought synthetic debt and one of the underlying asset markers tanked.

B). Even if they bought deeply discounted debt, that doesn't preclude it tanking more.

C). Really, the only thing that's remarkable is own such a young trio got backing for such a small group of funds to begin with. While this fund was only 25 (or 40) million, their group only had 400 million in the aggregate. That figure is pretty low and doesn't really suggest a whole lot of confidence in them by investors. It is a nice way to guarantee a presidential candidate's daughter/family has a nice NYC income.

Finally, signs of intelligent life on DCUM

A and B). True

C). Indeed. There are several surprising things that came to light in this implosion, so I expect we'll see some good analysis at some point.

Indeed. There are news stories dated near the founding of the fund describing the portion of the firm's funds known to come from Clinton supporters. Perhaps not investing for return on capital purposes. Capitol return, maybe.

But this thread is intriguing for another reason. It appears that when paid posters are called out, they have to stop posting rather than pretend to be other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A hedge fund that invests in greek debt and recruits investors who want to invest in greek debt is not doing a disservice to people if greek debt turns out to be a bad bet.

Sure.

I don't know why this isn't obvious to you. If you are a qualified investor, you should know this. If Vanguard or Fidelity offers you the chance to invest in a precious metals index fund and precious metals go down, are Vanguard and Fidelity negligent?

Very funny, Clintontroll.

Vanguard charges 0.1% or so.

Hedge funds, like Clinton's SOL, charge 2% of the whole amount invested, plus 20% of profit.

Notice some slight difference? Why do you think they charge that?

There are no index funds for buying into greek debt. It does cost more to get into asset classes not available to the small investor. If you don't buy into that it's fine. But the fiduciary issues are no less for an index fund than for a hedge fund because their fees are lower.

Faacinating. Tell us, what were the fiduciary responsibilities of a manager who lost 90% of the capital invested?

A fiduciary duty is a duty to act 100% in the interest of their principals. Failure to make money is not a violation of fiduciary duty.

You don't sound like someone who has much experience investing.

And you sound remarkably like a paid clinton troll. Your spin may work for some but it's just hilariously wrong for those of us who actually deal with hedge funds. But hey, your responses keep the thread alive so you keep your job.

+1. Frankly, I don't get why some Clinton supporter would care so much about this as to enter into obviously embarrassing discourse.

I respect Clinton more than either Sanders or Trump, but still be surprised at the 90% principal loss we are discussing here.

Me to. I wonder what really happened.

What do you mean, "what really happened"? The entire fund was based on a bet that Greece would pull out of their debt crisis. It didn't.

Very true, but by the time they bought all that Greek debt it was already heavily discounted. Losing 90% in those conditions is quite a feat.

A). Who knows if they bought debt? The only thing that's reported is that this teeny tiny fund took a long position on Greek debt. Maybe they bought debt. Maybe they sold protection. Maybe they bought synthetic debt and one of the underlying asset markers tanked.

B). Even if they bought deeply discounted debt, that doesn't preclude it tanking more.

C). Really, the only thing that's remarkable is own such a young trio got backing for such a small group of funds to begin with. While this fund was only 25 (or 40) million, their group only had 400 million in the aggregate. That figure is pretty low and doesn't really suggest a whole lot of confidence in them by investors. It is a nice way to guarantee a presidential candidate's daughter/family has a nice NYC income.

Finally, signs of intelligent life on DCUM

A and B). True

C). Indeed. There are several surprising things that came to light in this implosion, so I expect we'll see some good analysis at some point.

Indeed. There are news stories dated near the founding of the fund describing the portion of the firm's funds known to come from Clinton supporters. Perhaps not investing for return on capital purposes. Capitol return, maybe.

But this thread is intriguing for another reason. It appears that when paid posters are called out, they have to stop posting rather than pretend to be other.

True, but that may be paid or unpaid service

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nice choice Chelsea. No only do you pick a slimy guy from a slimy family, he's a fraud at what he does.

It seems to me that Hillary in fact picked him...
for obvious reasons.

[Anonymous]

C). Really, the only thing that's remarkable is own such a young trio got backing for such a small group of funds to begin with. While this fund was only 25 (or 40) million, their group only had 400 million in the aggregate. That figure is pretty low and doesn't really suggest a whole lot of confidence in them by investors. It is a nice way to guarantee a presidential candidate's daughter/family has a nice NYC income.

^ I totally agree with this analysis.

Strangely, this whole issue - the Mezvinsky hedge fund - has not been discussed in the media too much.

It is more of the same Clinton cronyism and greed etc.

[Anonymous]

Strangely, this whole issue - the Mezvinsky hedge fund - has not been discussed in the media too much.

Because "Rich investors lose money betting on Greek debt" is a dog-bites-man story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Strangely, this whole issue - the Mezvinsky hedge fund - has not been discussed in the media too much.

Because "Rich investors lose money betting on Greek debt" is a dog-bites-man story.

Also, sons-in-law are not generally newsworthy for a campaign. Unless they get a veto on VP picks or something.