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.

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?

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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You haven't posted any links (much less reputable ones) but if he just had a fund and it lost money that isn't stealing-- and it's not as if hedge funds are open to little old ladies living on social security.

Not pp.
http://www.newser.com/story/224957/hedge-fund-run-by-chelsea-clintons-husband-loses-90-of-value.html
http://gawker.com/chelsea-clintons-husband-fucked-up-1776045689
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3584863/Chelsea-Clinton-s-husband-Marc-colleagues-Goldman-Sachs-shutter-25million-hedge-fund-losing-nearly-investors-money-good-thing-10million-apartment.html
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/11/chelsea-clintons-husband-closing-hedge-fund-after-losing-90-percent-of-its-money/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/chelseas-husband-to-close-greek-hedge-fund-after-losing-90-of-value/article/2002345

$25m hedge fund with a Greece only strategy failed. That's super tiny and far from institutional.
How big is his flagship and other hedgefunds?

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is it about the Clinton family that they are always embroiled in some sort of shady shit?

It has gone on from their days in Arkansas and now we have the next generation joining the fray with their son-in-law!

Losing other people's money via hedge fund is no shadier than losing other people's money via casino.

And in this case the casinos belong to the candidate. The hedge fund does not.

Actually, the owner of a casino follows a business model designed to take customer money.
The founder of a hedge fund follows a business model designed to make money for the customers. But yes, sure, think they are the same if you like....

+1.

And that's why investors paid a lot of money to Clinton's SOL...and they would never pay that to a casino.



Surprise!!!!!!!!

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:What is it about the Clinton family that they are always embroiled in some sort of shady shit?

It has gone on from their days in Arkansas and now we have the next generation joining the fray with their son-in-law!

Birds of a feather....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is it about the Clinton family that they are always embroiled in some sort of shady shit?

It has gone on from their days in Arkansas and now we have the next generation joining the fray with their son-in-law!

Losing other people's money via hedge fund is no shadier than losing other people's money via casino.

And in this case the casinos belong to the candidate. The hedge fund does not.

Actually, the owner of a casino follows a business model designed to take customer money.
The founder of a hedge fund follows a business model designed to make money for the customers. But yes, sure, think they are the same if you like....

Both follow a business model designed to make money for themselves. Only one of them reaped millions of dollars in tax incentives for opening up businesses following that model. Only one of them then declared bankruptcy and closed the businesses, leaving the taxpayers without the tax money spent on those incentives and leaving them with empty buildings. And only one of them is running for President.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is it about the Clinton family that they are always embroiled in some sort of shady shit?

It has gone on from their days in Arkansas and now we have the next generation joining the fray with their son-in-law!

Losing other people's money via hedge fund is no shadier than losing other people's money via casino.

And in this case the casinos belong to the candidate. The hedge fund does not.

Actually, the owner of a casino follows a business model designed to take customer money.
The founder of a hedge fund follows a business model designed to make money for the customers. But yes, sure, think they are the same if you like....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is it about the Clinton family that they are always embroiled in some sort of shady shit?

It has gone on from their days in Arkansas and now we have the next generation joining the fray with their son-in-law!

Losing other people's money via hedge fund is no shadier than losing other people's money via casino.

And in this case the casinos belong to the candidate. The hedge fund does not.

Anonymous wrote:What is it about the Clinton family that they are always embroiled in some sort of shady shit?

It has gone on from their days in Arkansas and now we have the next generation joining the fray with their son-in-law!

Losing other people's money via hedge fund is no shadier than losing other people's money via casino.

What is it about the Clinton family that they are always embroiled in some sort of shady shit?

It has gone on from their days in Arkansas and now we have the next generation joining the fray with their son-in-law!