This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The way portable used to primarily be implemented was to leverage up with correlated assets and it ended up going very badly in 2008 when equities dropped 40%. A 20% drop in managed futures that is leveraged to a 40% weight would have added another 800 basis points to the decline (simple math). In 2008, VBAIX was down 23%.
So if you start with the S&P 500 or in this case stocks and bonds, you only have two asset classes, right. So the proper benchmark for those pools has to look a little bit like the underlying assets they’re investing in. If you look at the types of assets that Yale invests in, you can create a benchmark for each pool.
Long duration assets are losing favour given higher rates act like gravity on the price of securities whose intrinsic value is based on cash flows generated further into the future. Maths has a long half-life and a DCF correctly done accounts for inflation. GAAP in 2002 7. Depreciation rises over time too.
Instead of investing in a productive asset, these speculators were just assuming the recent momentum would continue. It’s fun math – a 20% drop in prices means you get 25% more shares for your dollar, and a 50% drop means twice as many , or 100% more shares per dollar invested.). 2) My net worth has just cratered by 20%.
She is an author and former hedge fund trader, specializing in distressed assets. MIELLE: Well, I mean, it was a fairly new asset class. I think, you know, it’s not until probably Farallon came into existence, that it became a real asset class in itself, that stressed and distressed was a category that was thought as investable.
But the numbers you can’t argue with, I mean, we all know that the brutal math of investing before costs investors collectively will earn the market return after costs. And suddenly you could buy index funds that cover all of the major asset classes. I did it in 2000, 2002. It’s, it’s a temporary move.
And I was a math nerd as a kid. And the assets under management were smaller. And the fact that you’re trying to bundle it up into a terminal value in, unless the assets are cash or convert to cash. 00:49:30 [Speaker Changed] I bought it around 2000 and it crashed around 2002. Magellan had more than that.
And this is just a masterclass in how to manage assets, think about your career, understand the relationship between markets, between fixed income, the Fed, the dollar, sentiment, consumer spending, just everything is related and understanding what matters when is the key to your success. He helps to oversee $2.5 RIEDER: Yeah.
I’m kind of in intrigued by the idea of philosophy and math. So I found myself getting kind of bored with my math problem sets, and then I could shift to philosophy and then go back and forth. And if you look at the s and p today, 50% of it is asset light, innovation oriented healthcare and tech. What was the career plan?
That’s why the markets are much more of a mind game than a math game. And that’s why markets will always be exceedingly hard, even when the math seems easy or the future seems certain. Like it or not, the unimaginable outcomes are the ones that make the biggest spread between expected asset returns and the actual result.”
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 36,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content