Top Hedge Funds?

Also, is it always better to get into a bigger hedge fund, as opposed to a smaller to medium sized one? Is the typical career progression anything like IB?

Thanks!

in no order

deshaw, bridgewater, sac capital, och ziff, citadel, fortress, stark, man group, blackstone's hedge funds, jpm's hedge funds, gs asset management, renaissance, farallon, tudor, harbinger, sankaty advisors, and many many more

blackstone's hedge funds are good?

i've never even heard of them...

Paulson & Co.
------------------------------------------------------------
So what do you do?
-I work for an investment banking firm.
Oh okay; you are like my brother, he works for Edward Jones.
-No, a college degree is required in my profession

Someone has been watching CNBC. You sure they are a top hedge fund? It was one guy making a huge bet on subprimes.

Stark Investments... also there is a hedge fund 100 list you can google that has the top 100 hedge funds in order of AUM.

Yea, Paulson may have made like the largest bet against subprime but you've gotta admit that that shows some prescience. Also $28 bn AUM is no small sh*t.
------------------------------------------------------------
So what do you do?
-I work for an investment banking firm.
Oh okay; you are like my brother, he works for Edward Jones.
-No, a college degree is required in my profession

The AUM is a decent argument, indicates that investors believe in him etc.. ok, but if I go to Vegas and put it all on black and double up, does that make me a gambling genius? Something to think about.

you go to Vegas, plunk down 8% of your chips on a bet that pays out odds of several thousand to one but really has a very high probability of you winning then yes, you are a gambling genius.

http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/people-who-think-trading-has-more-...

Having seven of the above list (including Paulson) as former clients, I would say categorically that they are top drawer.

I think you're talking about this ranking:

http://www.iimagazine.com/Rankings/rankingsHeFu100RGlobal08.aspx

I also believe that arguing a hf is a top firm based mainly on AUM isn't going to show much, but the list of 100 is pretty much covering all the names.

That is a fair point, maybe I oversimplified with the "double up on black" but the point still remains; do you think he can do it again? It's my understanding there were quite a few funds who had the same bet but were off on the timing, Paulson was just the guy who had the timing right and I think it's pretty uncontroversial to say that the timing is largely dictated by luck/unforeseen circumstances (BS HFs crashing, e.g.). So that leaves Paulson as being one of the few who timed it right along with betting in the right direction- does that make him a top HF in the sense of institutional investors, sovereigns etc. would instantly commit billions to? I don't know the right answer but my feeling is he may not be at "elite" status yet. I could be wrong though.

Additionally, Paulson & Co. definitely suffers from "key man" problem.

ideating,

it cost paulson less than 1% annually to make bets against subprime. While he was fortunate with his timing, the timing was largely irrelevant since he was betting against such tight spreads. To say that he won the lottery, or even flipped a coin, is not remotely accurate.

Hmm... well I'm not willing to do the research so I will take your word for it. I heard the account secondhand from a pretty reliable source.

They were founded by a former GS partner, Dinakar Singh. I would put them in the elite group.

a lot of ex-goldman people have elite hedge funds... besides the ones that were mentioned, there's also ESL, perry capital...etc

As I said in the other thread, to make that kind of return you need both skill and circumstance. I don't think we'll see such low pricing of risk again in our careers but that should not detract from the assessment of skill.

As EricJM pointed out, the cost of the trade was so low that you could argue that the other funds should be considered "less skillful" for not keeping the trade on.

Without seeing his investor list we can only speculate.

I'm absolutely sure he doesn't care whether you consider him "elite" or not. Paulson & Co is certainly in my top list.

I can say that the four team members that I have met are no slouches. How much they influence his investment decisions I don't know.
In my opinion there's no such thing as "institutional excellence", only smart hiring.

When did GSAM become elite? Apparently you didn't see 2007 #s.

are you on crack?

Paulson also made good money (I think $1 B or more) before his massively successful bet against subprime mortgages.

Oh just for the record so the clowns on this thread that think Paulson was a fluke in 2007. HES AT IT AGAIN up 26% vs avg decline of -.75% in 2008.

From http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aNrsOoR6tqPc&refer=h...

"John Paulson, 52, and Philip Falcone have successfully navigated the markets and are attracting new investors. Paulson, who runs the $33 billion Paulson & Co. in New York, returned 26 percent in his Advantage Plus Fund through June, according to investors.

The 45-year-old Falcone, who heads the $26 billion Harbinger Capital Partners in New York, has racked up a 42 percent return for his main Harbinger Capital Partners Fund, clients said. "

"Oh - the ladies ever tell you that you look like a fucking optical illusion?"

Paulson performed very well but the point still remains that over the long run his strategy is more risky than a more diversified multi strategy fund.

http://www.sharpeinvesting.com

Why do you say his strategy is more risky? What evidence is there, im really curious to know.

"Oh - the ladies ever tell you that you look like a fucking optical illusion?"