can someone smarter than me explain how the big pod shop model (Millennium, Citadel etc.) generally works pretty well? The whole idea of yanking the portfolio after some non-outlier drawdown in a relatively short period of time shouldn't really add any value imo
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @TheSpeculator0
Few things to consider, 1. good PMs will manage to the dd limit so it’s not simply a case of getting cut if the strategy has a bad period 2. you can obviously use discretion if a mean reverting trade takes a loss but clearly has higher E(pnl) from here,
1 reply 1 retweet 24 likes -
Replying to @macrocephalopod @TheSpeculator0
3. If you think you have some selection edge in hiring, then cutting the pods that lose money and keeping the ones that make money can actually be a pretty good way to refine that edge!
1 reply 0 retweets 23 likes -
Replying to @macrocephalopod @TheSpeculator0
4. you are less concerned with losing a few million $ on a large number of pods, what worries you is missing a pod that can generate hundreds of millions per year (so as well as aggressively cutting losers, you aggressively scale winners to capacity)
1 reply 1 retweet 28 likes -
Replying to @macrocephalopod @TheSpeculator0
5. Depending on how smart/centralised you are you can try to juice your returns by hedging common risk (eg equity factors) and applying leverage, afaik Citadel does this aggressively, Millennium bit so much
3 replies 0 retweets 23 likes -
Replying to @macrocephalopod @TheSpeculator0
6. You are taking netting risk because you need to pay the winners but can’t claw back from the losers. This requires you to keep drawdowns small, and there are some other ways to mitigate it for example by passing on larger execution and financing fees to the pods
3 replies 0 retweets 22 likes -
Replying to @macrocephalopod @TheSpeculator0
They have investors cover netting (and costs incl pm bonuses!) and take less on the perf, like 15%, to compensate
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes sorry, was writing this from the perspective of the fund not the GP (you do want the fund to have positive returns!) that wasn’t that clear
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.