Talk:MARHedge

Cleanup tag

I don't know whether it is common for stubs to get cleanup tags, but I put one on this because it has lost notability and is ungrammatical. Rich (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability asserted only a week previously in an AfD - I've removed the tag and fixed the 'ungrammatical'ness. Problem solved! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry If you know about this magazine, I would suggest having another look at this page. I'm going to replace the clean-up tag left by Rich two and a half years ago, because I don't even know if this magazine is a going concern any longer! I don't question that it has significance, er sorry, notability. Even if it is out of business now, it is referred to throughout Wikipedia Finance related articles. More importantly, it was one of the few sources of information that was available about hedge funds, managed funds, and any variety of fund not required to disclose information. If either of you are still around WP, please reconsider this article, and what to do with it. I refer in particular to Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, as you advocated retaining it back in 2009. Consider yourself chased by me, as I am a lady, and you did request it. --FeralOink (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Asset management articles

It is extremely difficult to write meaningful, high quality articles about asset management funds (and asset managers) due to the lack of publicly available information about these companies. The few sources are quoted over and over everywhere on the web, no matter how out-dated. Sometimes Wikipedia contributes to that effect, although it isn't Wikipedia's fault. In fact, I've noticed that the references on the web to the Wikipedia articles DO make sure to note the correct year, units of measurement and source.

The problem is that the public doesn't realize how much flux there has been recently in this area. I mean, they realize, as it is in the news constantly, but not in a comparative value sort of way. I don't refer to "poor people" or "the 99%" when I mention "the public". Most readers of Hacker News and IEEE Spectrum are as misinformed as everyone else, as they have their own areas of expertise, which doesn't include hedge fund industry expertise. The same is equally true for skilled tradesman, health care workers and the rest of the world who doesn't work in investment management.

An example: Toby Crabel

There is a single article from Absolute Return, dated 2005, which lists Toby Crabel's CTA fund holdings (call it AUM, or "Assets Under Management", another nebulous term that is unfortunately a standard) as $3.2bil. This is cited on Wikipedia, on the biography page for Crabel. It is repeated, verbatim, on every search I do for him on the internet, dating from 2006 onward, when it was included on his Wikipedia biographical article. Remember my prior section PLEASE! This is not a censure, criticism of Wikipedia, nor even of those who re-use the information (although they inevitably fail to cite Wikipedia, I've noticed), as they do exactly as I mentioned, i.e. accompany the dollar amount with the correct year and so forth.

Four years later, in 2009, Crabel was down to $300mil, an entire order of magnitude less! Now that isn't necessarily as bad as it might seem, because everyone else in his peer group of Commodity Trading Advisors (CTA's) were fairing poorly too. But it took a lot of effort for me to even determine that! I'm not certain of the accuracy either, as the source is a PowerPoint presentation from Prestige Funds Inc., dated August 2011, of the 37 largest CTA's as of January 2009. It is clearly intended for marketing purposes. It is also intended for marketing purposes to those with a minimum of $100,000 to invest (which is actually very small in the rarefied world of hedge fund and fund of fund investors, and offers an opportunity to companies and individual people who might not otherwise have access). Whether this particular offering by Prestige Funds is safe to invest in or not is another matter entirely, for example, Prestige Funds is a Cayman Islands domiciled entity.

The presentation is probably not intended for public distribution, as significant work went into preparing it. It is also full of disclaimers, warning that the figures shown are representative, should not be used for other purposes etc. I searched for but couldn't find copyright restrictions. This is it via Google Docs PDF.

Publicly accessible information

An absence of restrictions is unusual, as many of these sort of documents are typically stamped on every page with Confidential, Not for Public Distribution and so forth. This should be honored, not linked to, by Wikipedia!

N.B. The disclaimers and warnings about ownership protect the author or company who wrote the document. They also protect the public, in the sense that they are a possible red flag that the document may not be entirely accurate or defensible. That's a very good reason not to use it of a verifiable source of information! I don't know what the alternatives are, however.

Speculation and suggestions

Perhaps Wikipedia shouldn't even publish this information? I refer specifically to valuation conjectures. Articles about hedge funds and the like certainly are suitable candidates for articles, of course.

There is plenty of information that is available to the public, just not that easy to locate. It does have value and meets standards of the {{Verifiability}}. As an example, consider the NASDAQ Managed Funds Symbol List. The source is the NASDAQ OMX, the exchange itself. The document is updated on a daily basis. It must be accessible and secure, and NASDAQ is accountable to regulatory authorities for accuracy. It is the closest thing to a financial equivalent of an IUPAC approved and maintained document in the world of physical chemistry. And it is legal to access!

Let's return to Toby Crabel. That NASDAQ managed funds ticker symbol list gives a decent standard to determine whether his fund is still in existence. It also serves as a starting point for any who wish to research further. It is in text delimited format too:

Fund Symbol|Fund Name |Fund Family Name |Type|Category|Pricing Agent
EQCRX |Equinox Crabel Two Plus Strategy Fund Class I |Equinox Fund Trust|MS |Z |Gemini Fund Services, LLC

So at least I know that one of Crabel's funds is alive and well as of today, 7 March 2012. --FeralOink (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)