Chelsea Clinton's husband closing Greek-focused hf after losing 90% of investors asstes
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Nope. Just the simple case where the fund leverages itself. Or, if the debt instruments purchased had additional contribution provisions. |
Anonymous
If you raise 100M and then borrow 100M from your bank, broker, etc., you end up losing more than 100%. |
Anonymous
Except then you declare bankruptcy. You can not lose more than you invested (unless you committed some kind of crime and are held personally liable). Losing 90% is as close to total disaster as you can get (again, assuming you followed the relevant regulations and committed no crime) |
Anonymous
That's a nice idea. It makes sense to believe that. But that just isn't the way the reality is. |
Anonymous
?? Sorry, that's investment 101. But I'm open minded -- please show me the hedge funds (or any other vehicle) with a negative return. |
Anonymous
Meaning, something like -150% |
Anonymous
| You're right. It's investment 101. And just like math 101, those rules don't apply when you hit number theory and math 801. |
Anonymous
Beat me to it. Hedge funds are not investing 101. |
Anonymous
Give an example. |
Anonymous
Waiting... Not a single hedge fund had a performance of the type you are claiming: http://www.barrons.com/public/page/9_0210-hedgefundbestworst.html The worst of the worst, for any time horizon there, is -91% |
Anonymous
| I've represented investment banks in cases where there are allegations of improper leveraging or other negligence which has resulted in investors having to pony up sums greater than the amount of their original investment. It's not pretty. And a fund doesn't declare bankruptcy. Full disclosure of the risk and consequences is supposed to be made by the fund at the time of investment. |
Anonymous
| This is so completely irrelevant it should go in Off Topic. |
Anonymous
|
S&L crisis in the 1980s...Neil Bush....George H. W. Bush used taxpayer money to bail him and the industry out.
Silverado Savings and Loan collapsed in 1988, costing taxpayers $1.3 billion. Neil Bush was on the Board of Directors of Silverado at the time. Bush was accused of giving himself a loan from Silverado, but he denied all wrongdoing. The U.S. Office of Thrift Supervision investigated Silverado's failure and determined that Neil Bush had engaged in numerous "breaches of his fiduciary duties involving multiple conflicts of interest". Although Bush was not indicted on criminal charges, a civil action was brought against him and the other Silverado directors by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; it was eventually settled out of court, with Bush paying $50,000. As a director of a failing thrift, Bush voted to approve $100 million in what were ultimately bad loans to two of his business partners. And in voting for the loans, he failed to inform fellow board members at Silverado Savings & Loan that the loan applicants were his business partners. Neil Bush paid a $50,000 fine, paid for him by Republican supporters, and was banned from banking activities for his role in taking down Silverado, which cost taxpayers $1.3 billion. An RTC suit against Bush and other Silverado officers was settled in 1991 for $26.5 million. |
Anonymous
Not really. Based on what we are discussing, Chelsea's husband is about the single worst hedge fund investor in the last 5 years, at least. Do whatever you want with that, but it is what it is. |
Anonymous
| So what's his income? |