by this definition, Soros would not be a hedge fund; nor would Tiger, nor would Tudor, nor would Gartmore, Vega, GAM, SAC, or Caxton. Nor would LTCM, except a very small part of its fund. Purely quantitative funds are a very small part of the overall space and always have been; the category "hdege fund" was invented to describe long-short equity strategies. It has never been possible to invest large amounts of money on a purely algorithmic basis and IMO never will be; if it was, LTCM would have had a very different story.
best dd -----Original Message----- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of C Ruiz Sent: 16 April 2006 01:07 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Nationalism,Growth And Debt In a message dated 4/15/2006 7:15:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Louis & I have made peace, and I'm glad we have. And I've given up on flamewars; I'm a happier, saner person than I used to be, and don't see the point of fighting with people who are more or less my allies. Excellent news . Totally agree with your position, so I hope you understand my reaction to innuendos. Now, where I disagree is with your view of hedge funds: "Some operate on a purely automatic basis like this, but lots are run by human beings who like to place large bets. A *lot* of trading is about psyching out the guy on the other side of the trade, or reading market sentiment." This, because the latter style, which certainly exists and handles billions, is not in the true initial spirit of a hedge fund. Having participated in the mathematical/ stochastic design of a few of them and knowing quite a few others who run many of them, the so called "Quants", I guarantee you that they look down on the "psych" styles and do not consider them members of the same group. Somehow, due to press coverage, the term "hedge funds" was extended and applied to just to about any regular traditional investment fund. But the purists would feel offended to be grouped in such company. CS de R
