Top Hedge Fund List
Is there a top 20 hedge funds to work at? I've seen this on other boards and it has been incredibly useful to me. Also, hedge funds are a little weird in that they are rather small companies vs. total capital. So this should give a weighting to the size of the firm and ease of getting hired alongside total capital under management.
I know, I'm useless. But any pointers for this neophyte would be appreciated.
cheers
Monkeysama
Outdated but here ya go
http://nymag.com/news/features/2007/hedgefunds/30342/
[quote=-_-]Outdated but here ya go
http://nymag.com/news/features/2007/hedgefunds/30342/[/quote]
Thanks. Much obliged.
Monkey,
What's your qualifiers for Top Funds though? Are we talking AUM? Recognition of the Fund Manager? Stylistic? Performance? More info makes for a much better list.
The NY Mag article is great, but it's also not reflective of the new market order. If you can find it, check out HSBC's quarterly performance piece on the Hedge Fund Market. It's extremely interesting stuff.
Well. Think of a ranking based upon this metric:
Number of Employees + (Total Under Management / (Number of Employees * Large Constant))
The higher the better.
The problem is that Arrowstreet Capital, for example, has 100 employees. So I'm never going to get a job there. I want to go to a large and successful firm, but I want to know where to not bother applying.
And always, I whore out my resume: https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1zEuVDd2EsL_o9josf2aiSSc0VUDG5…
So, sorry. I just remember while my metric is good it could use some improvement to capture perfomance:
Here:
Number of Employees + (yoy%100)(Total Under Management / (Number of Employees * Large Constant))
The larger number the better.
There.
100 employees is huge, btw. Many $billion+ AUM funds have fewer, especially if you only mean research+trading/front office roles.
Criminey. Are you serious? Wow. That means I have almost no shot anywhere. I mean if you just play the odds. Sigh.
Well, here's the new resume: https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B6lfiH4iWEZiNzAzNzc2NmYtZDU4MC00Ym…
That's not what I meant. Your formula doesn't really work too well anyway for a multitude of reasons.
Think of my question as a league table type question. Insert any random BB Ranking post and cull how the rankings are done whenever a league table is mentioned. You know, the whole concept of the whole we're only looking at the rankings for Banks involved with M&A for deals under $3 Billion but greater than $500 Million in size in the Levered Tech Hardware Space for foreign companies outside of the G-7? That's how you need to frame things for a more concise ranking.
Instead of using the League table to rank banks and how many permutations you can get from it, do it for your criteria. Pick a Space, location and an AUM range before you decide how you want us to offer suggestions on potential funds.
Well, my problem is simply a min max problem. What is the best type of company/hedge fund I can get into with my qualifications? That's why I put size in there - I figure a very small company would be very hard to get into if it was pretty good.
Now, good can mean a lot of things (AUM, growth, etc etc). Ideally I probably am most qualified for a macro type fund, and less for a technology/programming type fund. But I struck out at Bridgewater, so who knows. In any case I don't care about geographic location, business type (so long as they'll take me), or anything like that. I just want a job.
What sort of role are you looking for in this HF?
Well, ideally I would be an investment associate/portfolio creator role. If I was at a more technical firm I would try and go programmer (HF or AI obv.)
I know that I have no hope at either management of Quant. But I think I could also swing ER, although I don't think that's necessarily want to be. Depending on the role though it could be fun.
Does that make sense?
this guys a troll...
bro. there are hedge funds that have 8 people that manage at least $1b.
First, not a troll. Second, I am looking for places that would want to employ me. In your hypothetical firm I have zero chance of working there as they're either all self made and have known each other for years, or there might be one or two guys who are related. That type of fund wouldn't be in a "Top 20 to get hired at" type of list that I am trying to propose.
Most hires I've ever seen in the industry are either network hires or through a headhunter. Very few firms are in a position where it makes sense to post jobs on their website like a bank or consulting firm. You may have some luck cold-emailing funds but the industry is fragmented and try to come up with a list of places to apply is futile, especially since you don't seem to have much of a focus in terms of what sort of fund you're looking for.
Dude I think you're top 20 list idea is misguided. Considering the size of the HF universe, there's no point in solely focusing on larger firms. Any fund over 1bn is going to have some turnover and it would be foolish to just wait for a large fund to have an opening when you could do the same thing at a slightly smaller place where you may get P/L faster and people might be more open to mentoring you (those are the things that really matter once you get past the analyst level).
Hedge Funds aren't like Big 4 accounting firms. PwC is most people's top choice because they have the highest revenues and hire the most auditors by a substantial margin. The biggest hedge funds have a smaller headcount than the incoming classes of auditors at each Big 4. For the odds to be decent, you need to look at all firms, not just the big ones.
OK, I get what you guys are saying now I think. I guess in a lot of areas of finance there is sort of the "places to be" kind of lists and so I asked a dumb question. Thanks for replying.
as always the illustrious monkeysama
Top 100 Hedge Funds, ranked by Barron's (Originally Posted: 05/20/2013)
Here's a link to the list http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052748704253204578469283806…
ABS and MBS have blown all other strategies out of the water since 2010. Also interesting to see all funds in the top ten have AUM
I dunno... If we're going to act like track record is in and of itself the way we measure the top hedge funds, then 3 years feels pretty weak.
Thanks for sharing!
x
Apparently, you guys have been making too much noise. Don't let the popularity go to your head...lol
How is Global Macro last?
BH watch what u say :P
I want to act like I know what's going on/feign comprehension but I don't want to live a lie anymore.
BH, have you ever revealed your fund before?
Has anyone else noticed that the HF brand names, Greenlight, Pershing, Baupost, etc..., are not on the list?
What's with the surprise?
Interesting read, thanks for sharing.
Thanks for sharing!
Bloomberg's Top Performing HFs (Originally Posted: 01/04/2013)
Bloomberg published its list of top 100 HFs (by performance) through Sept 30.
Top 5 by Name / Strategy / AUM / YTD % Metacapital Mortgage Opps / Mortg arb / $1.5B / 37.8% Pine River Fixed Inc / mortg arb / $3.6B / 32.9% CQS Directional Opps / Multi-strat/ $1.5B / 28.9% Pine River Liquid Mortgage / Mort arb / $1.1B / 28% Odey European / Macro / $1.8B / 24.1%
Top L/S Equity Omega $1.4B 21.7% Tiger Global $6B 21% Eminence $3B 20.9% Citadel Tactical Trading $1B 20% Maverick $10B 16%
Nice
Glad to see CQS on there.
Paulson at the bottom again.
Anyone else surprised Baupost and Ackman are not on the list?
Not surprise to see mort abr with such a strong showing.
The NASDAQ returned 19.8% over that same period...
Chase Coleman is dreamy
Good year for equity guys. Cooperman at Omega and Robbins at Glenview (who used to work for him) both killed it this year, ~25% for the full year. Also anyone who bought mortgages obviously made a killing.
Also, keep in mind that if these stats are through 9/30, it is before the big move in AAPL which creamed a lot of the guys that were crowded in that trade.
Top hedge funds (Originally Posted: 11/04/2006)
what is the top 10 hedge funds to work for?
tough to rank HF's like PE. Some of the better known ones that take from banking are Maverick, the Tiger funds, Citadel, Fortress, Cerberus, Farallon, Och-Ziff, Caxton, Silver Point, Soros. But there are a whole host of funds which are arguably better (Renaissance Technology, etc) which recruit different types of applicants, really about finding the right place and strategy where you can succeed unlike in PE where you know the big funds will most likely continue to be the dominant players in the game
I'm pretty sure the Tiger funds are closed. Anyways, Tudor, SAC, DE Shaw, AQR, Vega, RenTec, Bridgewater, ESL, Cerberus, Convexity, etc.
Renaissance is almost without a doubt the best hedge fund in the world.
Moore Capital, Tudor Investments, DE Shaw
SAC Capital, Perry Capital
Renaissance Technology only recruits nerds, and you really have to be a super-smart nerd...
else start a fund yourself (with 1% return above LIBOR)
I know an alumnus that works for Perry Capital. I didn't know if it was a reputable name in HF.
Tudor most definitely is.
HBK is a $12Billion+ fund, but rarely mentioned here...
Nobody mentioned Wellington Management. RenTech only recruits math and physics nerds, from my understanding....and they are able to get over 50% risk-adjusted return yearly.
is not a hedge fund, but they are smart guys. The Tiger fund (Julian Robertson's fund) doesn't exist anymore, but he seeded a bunch of Tiger cub funds which still retain the Tiger name (Tiger Global, etc) which are separate from the Tiger startups at Maverick, Lone Pine, etc
I believe Wellington Mgmt is a hedge fund. According to Bloomberg at least, they have to report 13F Hedge Fund Holdings quarterly.
is this firm's name a valuable asset to a resume? will it make an undergrad intern stand out in a stack of resumes for a banking job?
Yes.
Ramius is a great fund. So is Third Point.
anyone heard of Old Lane?
Long-Run Rankings for Hedge Funds (Originally Posted: 02/08/2013)
Hi everyone,
I'd like to ask if someone could direct or refer me to a free, online reputable ranking of investment or hedge funds by their long-term rate of return, at or above 10 years?
I'm looking for something like Bloomberg's "The 100 Top-Performing Large Hedge Funds," but the problem is that these rankings were based upon only 10 months. I'm looking for 10 years or above.
I've tried Google but there doesn't seem to be any for hedge funds matching my criteria. Thank you very much!
Unlikely you find a list like that Also, scale matters (AUM) Most funds havent been around for 10 years
Lemme know when you find this...
Do you have any specific funds you're thinking of? I'll see what I can do.
Shoot me a PM.
Certain large FoFs can give you monthly returns, performance statistics, strategy overview etc of most large hedge funds. For the CTA space you have services like Altegris as well.
I'm interviewing for Bridgewater. So a little biased here, bwater! All you need to know.
Thanks for your responses, everyone.
In the case that 10 years are too long, is there a ranking with shorter periods of returns, say 3 or 5 years? Or are returns confidential?
Top Hedge Fund List? Trustworthy? Accurate? (Originally Posted: 07/26/2011)
Barron's list and Bloomberg - how trustworthy or accurate are their top hedge fund list?
Good place to start, but things like AUM and performance can be tricky because of a few things: 1) Info is often out of date 2) Different managers run different funds/different strategies and how these are separated/accounted for can vary 3) Not everyone discloses their information, though the best data providers usually illicitly get data from investors 4) Bigger is not always better
thanks bro
Doctortt can you post your links for these lists? Thanks, EB
Trustworthy, sure - but one key inaccuracy is % of hedge fund assets. Certain funds will be listed with a very high AUM, but not all will be in alternative strategies - the large hedge funds (in the $10-15Bn range, which appear further down the list, will in fact be larger).
Here is another Top Hedge Fund List that might be of interest. It focuses on equity funds only: http://www.hedgetracker.com/article/Top-100-US-Equity-Hedge-Funds-overs…
[quote=nyhedgefunder]Here is another Top Hedge Fund List that might be of interest. It focuses on equity funds only: http://www.hedgetracker.com/article/Top-100-US-Equity-Hedge-Funds-overs…]
I hope you get a commission from Hedgetracker, link them constantly! Not criticizing as it's a great (free!) resource.
Name top hedge funds (Originally Posted: 07/19/2008)
I don't know much about hedge funds...so please enlighten me and name about 20 or so top hedge funds :)
D.E Shaw is the top hedge fund in my opinion
SAC and Renaissance are right there too.
Here is a list of the top 100 hedge funds in terms of assets under management. It should cover most of the top funds. (http://www.iimagazine.com/Rankings/rankingsHeFu100RGlobal08.aspx?src=ht…)
www.sharpeinvesting.com
If you're interested in working at a hf, especially after undergrad, it would be well to note that many of the funds on the list are better than others (assets under management doesn't directly translate to this) as well as the fact that many of them are darn near impossible to get a job for (Ren Tech, who seems to go looking themselves for brilliant Math/Physics phds and is more of a closed group).
I don't know too much either but I think some of the best that take people out of undergrad are D.E Shaw Citadel (but its notorious for a high turnover) Bridgewater
Gl and I'm def. very interested in this thread and anyone who wants to expand on how to get a career in a hf after undergrad, and which will take you (sa positions etc), and yes I know there is a thread on this, but its not very informative.
Just search for it...literally less than a week ago we had this discussion. Oh, and apparently I watch too much CNBC.
http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/top-hedge-funds-0
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
Bloomberg's Top HF Rankings (Originally Posted: 01/08/2014)
Interesting to see Paulson's Opportunity fund performing so well.
Link to the rankings: http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rE4PZiFR9HhI
Here is a link to the story: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-08/glenview-s-robbins-tops-hedge-…
Solid list. There are a few notable omissions that I know did really well this year which is interesting. Larry Robbins is a boss and has been for some time.
Paulson put in work lol. Also, on ZH I saw that Bridgewater's All Weather fund was down 3.9%
Interesting. Ya I missed the fact that Paulson had 3-4 on there.
.
It is worth noting these are only through oct 31.
-I find it kind of ironic they have conatus but not Lone Pine -baupost should be on here, but hey it is only a $20bn+ fund -Viking should be on here
You know more than I, but are the returns for those worthy of the list? Besides, this is only looking at total return, not risk-adjusted, right? Gotta wait for the HFI.
only 24 beat the S&P?
Many funds don't publicize returns
are investor letters the main reason that the public hears of a funds performance?
A lot of those also aren't full year, but only thru Oct or Nov.
top 3 hedge funds (Originally Posted: 03/12/2007)
sources at D.E. Shaw tell me that the top 3 hedge funds for 2006 are:
1) Goldman Sachs AM 2) Bridgewater 3) D.E. Shaw
By "sources", do you mean Alpha magazine? http://www.deshaw.com/articles/Alpha.pdf By top 3? Do you mean ranked by aum? It's rather hard to rank hedge funds by other criterion, since absolute and relative returns are dependent on portfolio manager philosophy and benchmarks, which aren't publicly available.
Any list of the top N hedge funds for any period, that doesn't include RenTec, is incorrect.
By AUM, RenTec isn't on the list at all. RenTec, as many have noted, has generally become more of Simons and associates' personal investment vehicle that a hedge fund--in order to maximize returns on their investments they have capped fund size.
I love business majors at my school that try to tell me about the prestige of different hedge funds and then I proceed to ask them what they think about Renaissance Technologies. If they have never heard of it, it must not be that great. I laugh and walk away. You don't call them; they call you.
By AUM, RenTec isn't on the list because they return money to their investors at the end of each year. They could be much bigger than they are now, if they so desired. I'll also not that being big doesn't automatically make a hedge fund good at what they do.
In addition, the fact that they mostly manage the money of their employees shouldn't really be an issue. This means you can't invest in the fund, making it no different from any of the other closed HFs out there. Whether or not a hedge fund is good has nothing to do with who's money is being managed.
All of this is pointing out that you can't judge returns on a relative basis, which is clear to most people in the industry. Renaissance is still an incredible fund, but to say that "any list that doesn't include RenTec" is not top 3 is just ridiculous.
It does have to do with whether the issue is of any importance to investors. However, I was just informing others that the fund is capped, and has a relatively small cap at that, which is important to note.IIRC, their very recent REIF B fund is supposed to placate criticisms of that and, according to them, has a cap of $100B.
I think it's amazing that they're able to get such high returns from just equity and equity futures since those seem to be the most squeezed out of all financial products
I'll also add that since GSAM's Global Alpha fund was down in 2006, it's laughable to think they were "top 3" by any criteria in 2006.
have you ever heard of something called "bad luck"?
I don't disagree that it's very hard to compare the success of funds that operate at very different AUMs. Clearly transaction costs would erode RenTec's returns to some extent if they chose to operate at DE Shaw's size, though it's impossible to know by how much.
Sure, I've heard of bad luck. But consider this, if Tiger Woods somehow won no tournaments this year, would we still say he's one of 2007's top players?
Global Alpha had a lousy 2006, and thus they don't belong at the top of any "Best funds for 2006" list that has remotely anything to do with performance.
Also, from Goldman's 2007 Q1 Earnings Report:
Asset Management net revenues were $1.07 billion, 28% lower than the first quarter of 2006, reflecting significantly lower incentive fees, partially offset by a 31% increase in management and other fees. Incentive fees were $90 million for the first quarter of 2007 compared with $739 million for the same prior year period.
This suggests that the fund isn't off to a great start in 2007.
The fund lost ~6% in January (or maybe first three months aggregate), if I remember correctly.
Do not obsesses about such things. Top 3 today doesn't mean they will be top 3 in 3 years (viz. LTCM).
ESL, SAC, RenTec, Citadel aren't on the list, but GSAM, with Mark Carhart's shitty '06 and the subprime meltdown, IDK what you're talking about. That list is shitty as hell.
Top Hedge Funds? (Originally Posted: 07/06/2008)
What are the 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!
When did GSAM become elite? Apparently you didn't see 2007 #s.
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.
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
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
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.
//www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/people-who-think-trading-has-more-to-do-with-luck-than-skill#comment-118987
Having seven of the above list (including Paulson) as former clients, I would say categorically that they are top drawer.
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.
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.
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
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=…
"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?"
Paulson is still a hot hedge fund. It's the place that the top Harvard MBA students want to work at. They took a few interns last summer, most of whom were Harvard JD/MBA's.
This is obviously a very difficult question and it depends on the crtieria we are using to judge. I would say there are two relevant questions with very different answers: 1) Who would I want my money with? 2) Who would I want to work for?
The answer to #1 is only shops that have never had blow-ups, never put up gates, and have good returns over a very long time horizon...15+ years. So with my own money I'd be in places like Tudor, Soros, Moore,...having a hard time thinking of any more. I certainly would never put my own money in Citadel, GSAM, or someplace else that dropped 50% in 2008 or would not let investors get out on their original terms during the financial crisis.
The answer to #2 is going to be way different...the three I mentioned above are still on the list but I would add a whole swath of newer firms that dont have a long enough track record to make list #1. Really when you are going to work someplace the key factors are just stability of the fund, amount of capital you are going to be able to manage, the payout and other terms of the contract (claw-backs, deferals, etc) and whether they are going to leave you alone and let you run the money the way you want.
And for the record I think that Paulsen has undergone a massive "strategy drift" since the financial crisis and I do not see him as a great macro guy. His returns have been good so far mainly because he has taken a giant punt on gold but I think the way he is trading is dangerous. Subprime was a once-in-a-decade-type trade and he seems to be aproaching every trade as if it is this type of opportunity. For eg, when he likes gold he very publicly goes ballistic buying gold and vows to hold the position for years. That is not how the macro funds that have been around for a long time do it. I t dosent matter for him personally since he is a billionaire but I'd be worried about putting money in his fund now. One of these giant bets is going to blow up in his face and the bets he has now (gold, financials, higher interest rates) do not offer nearly the type of asymmetric pay-outs the subprime bet did.
Good point. Paulson is down this year, and he shows no sign of giving up his gold bet. Paulson's rise has been meteoric, but that was probably once in a decade opportunity.
It seems like Soros and Moore are the macro funds that most people want to work for.
Here are some of the top hedge fund gurus: http://www.hedgetracker.com/top_hedge_fund_gurus.php
Just because they are gurus and have had succesful track records, doesn't mean they are the best place to start you own hedge fund career.
If you look at the guys who have moved on from great firms to succesfully launch their own firm's, some of greatest firms would seem to be: Goldman prop desks (not GSAM), SAC Capital, DE Shaw, Tiger Management & its affiliates, Soros
I would defitnitely remove Stark from above
I think it's time to make a WSO Ranking of HF/IB/... and make them sticky. There are millions of similar threads.
I would like to bump this post in light of the fact that Paulsen has undergone a full-fledged melt-down this week and is probably down more then 50% for the year after today....can we officially cross paulsen off this list please?
Very prescient post, Bondarb. It's crazy how much things change in a year. I was visiting a friend at booth yesterday and talked to a bunch of 2nd years. One of them said, "I would never work for Paulson." Just last year, every finance person at HBS/Wharton/Booth were dying to get a job there.
Fact is I would still rate Paulson a top shop irrespective of the returns because of the caliber of people working there. These are guys who could jump ship to other top event driven shops if they wanted to. Also, 50% of $35bn is still $17.5bn which is still a large number by HF standards.
If the -50% figure is true, it's probably only one of their funds that's gotten hit that hard, with the other ones faring a lot better, implying that the total AUM isn't in nearly as big of a hole.
According to this top hedge fund list, Paulson was already below $30 billion at the end of June: http://www.hedgetracker.com/article/Top-10-Hedge-Funds-oversee-nearly-1…
Old thread but the macro bias here is huge. I just skimmed and didn't see a mention of Baupost, Greenlight, Third Point, York, etc
I'm not saying any of those are THE best hedge fund, but they area all top ones, and better than many that have been mentioned here.
Top 10 Hedge Funds in 2011 (Originally Posted: 01/10/2012)
We have been compiling hedge fund returns in 2011 for the past couple of weeks. We gathered returns for more than 60 hedge funds we are tracking. Here are the 10 top hedge funds in 2011:
1. Chase Coleman – Tiger Global: Chase Coleman’s Tiger Global returned 45% through the end of October.
2. Carl Icahn: Icahn was one of the most successful hedge fund managers and returned 35% in 2011.
3. Jim Simons – Renaissance: Renaissance Institutional Equities gained 1.97% from November 30 to December 23. The fund was also up 34.66% through December 23rd.
4. Ray Dalio – Bridgewater Associates: Ray Dalio’s successful fund gained 25% through the end of November.
5. David E. Shaw – D.E. Shaw: David Shaw’s Oculus Fund gained 19% through the end of October.
6. Ken Griffin – Citadel: Ken Griffin returned 17.7% through the end of October.
7. Philippe Laffont – Coatue Capital: Laffont returned 16.9% through the end of October.
8. John Thaler – JAT Capital: JAT Capital had generated a 38% return at its peak in early September. Betting on Netflix didn’t help the fund in the fourth quarter. JAT is still up 14% through mid-December.
9. Hugh Hendry – Eclectica Asset Management: Hugh Hendry’s Eclectica gained 11.7% through the end of October. The fund returned 2.7% in 2010.
10. Alan Howard – Brevan Howard: Brevan Howard Master gained 10.8% through the end of October.
insidermonkey.com
This is syndicated content and is approved for release on Wall Street Oasis. Mods, please do not block or delete. Thanks
Bridgewater is a 60 bn + fund. thats insane....
So the assumption is that it is harder to get bigger returns if the AUM is large right? So, Prop trading firms return much higher percentages with smaller AUMs?
Nice post...checking out the website now
I wonder how much Icahn's short on GMCR netted him
Wasn't aware that Icahn was short GMCR. You might be mistaken with Einhorn, he was the one that presented it at the Value Investor Congress:
http://dealbreaker.com/2011/10/if-you-only-read-one-110-page-presentati…
Occaecati cum enim architecto cum temporibus sed totam molestias. Occaecati similique ipsum est fugit officia placeat occaecati. Iusto velit quae quis quis.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Dolorum quaerat qui vero et autem excepturi. Sapiente odit earum vitae possimus. Sunt fuga totam esse enim eum neque. Et magnam ea sint eos mollitia ea maiores.
Omnis voluptas nostrum non sed consequuntur. Enim sit debitis maxime exercitationem. Sequi dolore vel et distinctio dolore quam ipsam et.
Perferendis saepe est ea a error quia. Enim voluptate iure impedit sunt id. Corporis quia similique aut ut nesciunt.
Et et culpa ipsam nihil magni quae. Suscipit sed odio culpa. Odit praesentium sed cumque molestiae laborum.
Eum consequuntur enim explicabo explicabo ducimus aut debitis. Odio eaque in aut est excepturi assumenda. Id quidem aperiam suscipit.
Illo illum voluptas consectetur libero. Dolorum quia ea facere numquam. Inventore quaerat dicta est dolor qui.
Nulla voluptatem aut distinctio. Voluptates occaecati et eum dolores voluptatem rerum iste. Nobis necessitatibus odit atque minus quam.
Accusamus minus maiores consectetur sit. Molestias dolorem laborum cumque atque debitis vero. Neque doloremque impedit consequatur odit. Eum enim asperiores numquam corporis consequatur et esse. Est laboriosam repudiandae esse dolor cupiditate sit unde. Omnis consequatur in rerum asperiores et voluptatibus.
Illum voluptatem enim similique illum maxime iusto aspernatur. Nihil voluptatibus nemo sint harum. Et corrupti enim repellat saepe laborum ut.
Enim nihil odit doloribus ad animi voluptas ipsa dolore. Vero at dicta quisquam repudiandae quisquam.
Quia eum libero asperiores rerum distinctio temporibus odit eum. Aperiam non non quasi sequi vero. Voluptas velit consectetur laborum excepturi voluptatem sit sit. Voluptatem porro ut qui molestias.
Id voluptatem aperiam itaque illo nihil adipisci nostrum. Id quos est culpa dolorem laudantium aspernatur laborum. Reiciendis corporis est est repellat vel fugiat.
Dolorem culpa dolorem quas excepturi alias quo fugiat qui. Veniam tenetur dignissimos blanditiis quos occaecati. Nulla architecto illum consequatur. Voluptatem eum aut ut perferendis. Natus rerum minus quidem officiis ut quis.
Molestiae nam odit dolor iste enim et in consequuntur. Dolores rerum harum omnis quam earum facilis velit. Eaque corporis voluptatem qui. Rem et qui distinctio aut saepe nisi eius. Qui rerum a accusamus qui.
Amet dolores qui id nostrum sapiente et. Ad commodi ut tenetur dolores maxime. Mollitia tenetur voluptate omnis libero.
Recusandae eos rem aut qui quis rerum quod ipsa. Error ut tempora omnis quibusdam et est consequatur tempore. Numquam sequi qui perferendis sed et.
Quam quo voluptatibus quo. Autem eum deserunt ex porro dolorum omnis. Ut earum dolorem facilis architecto esse consequatur est. Facere nobis laboriosam facere voluptas. Et quae aut doloribus non doloremque.
Et rerum aut doloribus sed id quaerat. Voluptatem ut quidem autem eum et aut.
Sit dignissimos quaerat itaque. Iste perferendis consectetur necessitatibus itaque quos voluptatem. Similique consequuntur ullam repellat dolor qui. Porro et commodi quas delectus et eum. Tempore nostrum possimus optio vel beatae soluta vel culpa. Maxime sunt facere rerum eligendi aut enim. Et eos praesentium quidem beatae id nemo.
Sit tenetur quae accusantium eius et provident. Quis aspernatur ea possimus excepturi iusto exercitationem cum. Ratione repellat veritatis ducimus nobis eos ad.