I don't agree with the posters that somehow the Chelsea and Mark marriage was a set up.

Chelsea and Mark met years ago as children at that summer program that many liberal elites attend..I can't remember the name of it, but the Clintons and his parents attended.

Then they were at Stanford together IIRC.

I think they were longtime friends and then became more after her break up with that other guy.

I have read that the Clintons didn't really like him for their daughter but they have warmed up to him.

I think Chelsea and Mark have a lot in common actually.

I also think he suffers from depression issues....hence the running away to Utah or Colorado to ski for a long time only a year or two into their marriage.

he was at loose ends for a while and then of course he started his brilliant hedge fund.

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.

My guess is synthetic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I thought Jewish men make the best husband's.

He's not good at his job. He doesn't seem particularly charming. And he's not very handsome. Seriously, I'd like to think I'd do better if I were dealt Chelsea's hand.

Seriously. What DID she see in him? Or did mama hillary just have her personal reasons for the union?

When did the Clintons first meet his parents anyway?

I hear you. Remember when he took a month-long holiday to ski in Utah right after they got married or something like that? I'd at least hope she'd pick a man who was more attentive to her than that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I thought Jewish men make the best husband's.

He's not good at his job. He doesn't seem particularly charming. And he's not very handsome. Seriously, I'd like to think I'd do better if I were dealt Chelsea's hand.

Seriously. What DID she see in him? Or did mama hillary just have her personal reasons for the union?

When did the Clintons first meet his parents anyway?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mezvinsky is not disqualified from running a hedge fund because his MIL is running for President.

He WAS running a hedge fund because of who his in laws are...Get it?

No one would have put him in charge of their $ otherwise. These investors were currying favor with the Clintons by investing with little Markie.

Opinions are like a**holes. Yours appears to be significantly larger than most.

Not PP but are you using an insult-generating app or something?

Anonymous wrote:Mezvinsky is not disqualified from running a hedge fund because his MIL is running for President.

He WAS running a hedge fund because of who his in laws are...Get it?

No one would have put him in charge of their $ otherwise. These investors were currying favor with the Clintons by investing with little Markie.

Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I thought Jewish men make the best husband's.

He's not good at his job. He doesn't seem particularly charming. And he's not very handsome. Seriously, I'd like to think I'd do better if I were dealt Chelsea's hand.

Can you tell us what the firm's ROI is?

Huh? Does his attractiveness as a husband depend on his ROI?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still waiting for all the self-proclaimed hedge fund experts to describe the exact nature of the alleged breach of fiduciary duty. They could also point us to evidence of a claim asserted against the hedge fund by an investor (or group of investors) or a coverage dispute between the fund and its insurer. It's hard to keep something like this under wraps for long in the financial world, particularly if there's a potential political angle.

Hillary has so many scandals, this one didn't make top one. Plus you have a crooked media.

Based on his investment record, he should be fired at a minimum and go scam at Clinton Foundation. How can he afford living in a 10 million dollar apartment when he loses 90% of assets?

I'm pretty sure he's not going to be "fired" from the investment firm he co-founded with two colleagues from Goldman Sachs. This wasn't their only hedge fund and its a safe bet he wasn't making investment decisions on his own. By the way, do you even understand how a hedge fund operates? Please don't continue to embarsss yourself with inane comments that are barely coherent comments.

I'm not the PP you're responding to here but stop trying to be an asshole about how much more vast your knowledge of hedge funds is than everyone else's. You're impressing fewer people than you think you are.

One doesn't need a vast knowledge of hedge funds to avoid making demonstrably stupid statements like the reference to the "crooked media" and "scam[ming]" the Clinton Foundation. It typically helps to have some basic knowledge of a topic before making a comment about the reasons someone should be "fired." But then again I'm sure those screeching about breach of fiduciary duty and malfeasance are experienced I-bankers entrusted with $400 million of investor funds.

Nice try. Opinions about the media being crooked or the Clinton Foundation being a scam have nothing to do with hedge fund expertise. Everyone sees you're just trying to assume superiority by acting like a know it all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I thought Jewish men make the best husband's.

He's not good at his job. He doesn't seem particularly charming. And he's not very handsome. Seriously, I'd like to think I'd do better if I were dealt Chelsea's hand.

Can you tell us what the firm's ROI is?

Anonymous wrote:Mezvinsky is not disqualified from running a hedge fund because his MIL is running for President.

He WAS running a hedge fund because of who his in laws are...Get it?

No one would have put him in charge of their $ otherwise. These investors were currying favor with the Clintons by investing with little Markie.

Opinions are like a**holes. Yours appears to be significantly larger than most.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I thought Jewish men make the best husband's.

He's not good at his job. He doesn't seem particularly charming. And he's not very handsome. Seriously, I'd like to think I'd do better if I were dealt Chelsea's hand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still waiting for all the self-proclaimed hedge fund experts to describe the exact nature of the alleged breach of fiduciary duty. They could also point us to evidence of a claim asserted against the hedge fund by an investor (or group of investors) or a coverage dispute between the fund and its insurer. It's hard to keep something like this under wraps for long in the financial world, particularly if there's a potential political angle.

Hillary has so many scandals, this one didn't make top one. Plus you have a crooked media.

Based on his investment record, he should be fired at a minimum and go scam at Clinton Foundation. How can he afford living in a 10 million dollar apartment when he loses 90% of assets?

I'm pretty sure he's not going to be "fired" from the investment firm he co-founded with two colleagues from Goldman Sachs. This wasn't their only hedge fund and its a safe bet he wasn't making investment decisions on his own. By the way, do you even understand how a hedge fund operates? Please don't continue to embarsss yourself with inane comments that are barely coherent comments.

I'm not the PP you're responding to here but stop trying to be an asshole about how much more vast your knowledge of hedge funds is than everyone else's. You're impressing fewer people than you think you are.

One doesn't need a vast knowledge of hedge funds to avoid making demonstrably stupid statements like the reference to the "crooked media" and "scam[ming]" the Clinton Foundation. It typically helps to have some basic knowledge of a topic before making a comment about the reasons someone should be "fired." But then again I'm sure those screeching about breach of fiduciary duty and malfeasance are experienced I-bankers entrusted with $400 million of investor funds.

Anonymous wrote:Mezvinsky is not disqualified from running a hedge fund because his MIL is running for President.

He WAS running a hedge fund because of who his in laws are...Get it?

No one would have put him in charge of their $ otherwise. These investors were currying favor with the Clintons by investing with little Markie.

Agree. Except it's not WERE currying favor. Still ARE currying favor. The fact that the guy lost their money means the Clintons now owe them a bigger favor.

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.

I thought Jewish men make the best husband's.

Mezvinsky is not disqualified from running a hedge fund because his MIL is running for President.

He WAS running a hedge fund because of who his in laws are...Get it?

No one would have put him in charge of their $ otherwise. These investors were currying favor with the Clintons by investing with little Markie.