Originally Posted by stevent
Jim Simons is a baller. But he has gotten 38% annualized returns (since the mid 90s I think) after fees (5%, 36% probably the highest in the industry). Still nowhere close to 200%
Originally Posted by NorCal
Dude, I know very little about the nuts and bolts of this business but any results in the 200% or greater range would seem to indicate a flawed algorithm. Nobody is making that kind of money and to think you found the magic beans is a bit silly IMHO.
It's not 200% annualized. Average annualized it's probably about in the 40-50% range -- which is still obviously very high -- because it performs better in these high-volatility markets and then slows down quite a bit when the market moves into a steady bull mode. And again, we do anticipate some falloff from the numbers on paper, just nothing incredibly dramatic. I'd be happy if we ended up doing half that in real life. 100% since 01/10 would be pretty darn nice.
And, I take your point -- believe me, we've thought about it -- but when you have numbers that validate consistently, that you've error checked, that you've had professionals look over, and that you can replicate across different periods of time, well, what are you supposed to think except that you have something that might work? Certainly I think it's worth the attempt. Of course it could all turn out to be useless and fall apart -- that's the nature of the business.