Alternative Investment Advisors

Dow Down Another 450 Points

Some cool hard assets images:

Dow Down Another 450 Points


Image by YoTuT
SEPTEMBER 18, 2008

Worst Crisis Since ’30s, With No End Yet in Sight
By JON HILSENRATH, SERENA NG and DAMIAN PALETTA

The financial crisis that began 13 months ago has entered a new, far more serious phase.
Lingering hopes that the damage could be contained to a handful of financial institutions that made bad bets on mortgages have evaporated. The latest turmoil comes not so much from the original problem — troubled subprime mortgages — but from losses on credit-default swaps, the insurance contracts sold by American International Group Inc. and others to those seeking protection against other companies’ defaulting.
The consequences for companies and chief executives who tarry — hoping for better times in which to raise capital, sell assets or acknowledge losses — are now clear and brutal, as falling share prices and fearful lenders send troubled companies into ever-deeper holes. This weekend, such a realization led John Thain to sell the century-old Merrill Lynch & Co. to Bank of America Corp. Each episode seems to bring intervention by the government that is more extensive and expensive than the previous one, and carries greater risk of unintended consequences.
Expectations for a quick end to the crisis are fading fast. "I think it’s going to last a lot longer than perhaps we would have anticipated," Anne Mulcahy, chief executive of Xerox Corp., said Wednesday.
"This has been the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. There is no question about it," said Mark Gertler, a New York University economist who worked with fellow academic Ben Bernanke, now the Federal Reserve chairman, to explain how financial turmoil can infect the overall economy. "But at the same time we have the policy mechanisms in place fighting it, which is something we didn’t have during the Great Depression."
In the wake of this past week’s market meltdown, WSJ’s economics editor David Wessel looks at the shakeup and sees one of two outcomes: the crisis as catharsis or a drawn-out mess.
The U.S. financial system resembles a patient in intensive care. The body is trying to fight off a disease that is spreading, and as it does so, the body convulses, settles for a time and then convulses again. Disease has overwhelmed the self-healing tendencies of markets. The doctors in charge are resorting to ever-more invasive treatment, and are now experimenting with remedies that have never before been applied.
Fed Chairman Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson walked into the hastily arranged meeting with congressional leaders Tuesday night to brief them on the government’s unprecedented rescue of AIG. They looked like exhausted surgeons delivering grim news to the family.
"These are huge, momentous events with cataclysmic implications," Sen. Chris Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, said in an interview after the meeting.
Fed and Treasury officials have identified the disease. It’s called deleveraging. During the credit boom, financial institutions and American households took on too much debt. Between 2002 and 2006, household borrowing grew at an average annual rate of 11%, far outpacing overall economic growth. Borrowing by financial institutions grew by a 10% annualized rate. Now many of those borrowers can’t pay back the loans, partly because of the collapse in housing prices. They need to reduce their dependence on borrowed money, a painful and drawn-out process that can choke off credit and economic growth.
At least three things need to happen to bring the deleveraging process to an end, and they’re hard to do at once. Financial institutions and others need to fess up to their mistakes by selling or writing down the value of distressed assets they bought with borrowed money. They need to pay off debt. Finally, they need to rebuild their capital cushions, which have been eroded by losses on those distressed assets.
But many of the distressed assets are hard to value and there are few if any buyers. Deleveraging also feeds on itself in a way that can create a downward spiral: Trying to sell assets pushes down the assets’ prices, which makes them harder to sell and leads firms to try to sell more assets. That, in turn, suppresses these firms’ share prices and makes it harder for them to sell new shares to raise capital. Mr. Bernanke, as an academic, dubbed this self-feeding loop a "financial accelerator."
More on the Crisis
Mounting Fears Pummel World MarketsMorgan Stanley in Talks With Wachovia, OthersUnheard Pleas, Lost Chances for AIG Complete Coverage: Wall Street in Crisis"Many of the CEO types weren’t willing…to take these losses, and say, ‘I accept the fact that I’m selling these way below fundamental value,’ " says Anil Kashyap, a University of Chicago business professor. "The ones that had the biggest exposure, they’ve all died."
Deleveraging started with securities tied to subprime mortgages, where defaults started rising rapidly in 2006. But the deleveraging process has now spread well beyond, to commercial real estate and auto loans to the short-term commitments on which investment banks rely to fund themselves. In the first quarter, financial-sector borrowing slowed to a 5.1% growth rate, about half of the average from 2002 to 2007. Household borrowing has slowed even more, to a 3.5% pace.
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. economist Jan Hatzius estimates that in the past year, financial institutions around the world have already written down 8 billion worth of assets and raised 7 billion worth of capital.
But that doesn’t appear to be enough. Every time financial firms and investors suggest that they’ve written assets down enough and raised enough new capital, a new wave of selling triggers a reevaluation, propelling the crisis into new territory. Residential mortgage losses alone could hit 6 billion by 2012, Goldman estimates, triggering widespread retrenchment in bank lending. That could shave 1.8 percentage points a year off economic growth in 2008 and 2009 — the equivalent of 0 billion in lost good in services each year.
"This is a deleveraging like nothing we’ve ever seen before," said Robert Glauber, now a professor of Harvard’s government and law schools who came to the Washington in 1989 to help organize the savings and loan cleanup of the early 1990s. "The S&L losses to the government were small compared to this."
Hedge funds could be among the next problem areas. Many rely on borrowed money, or leverage, to amplify their returns. With banks under pressure, many hedge funds are less able to borrow this money now, pressuring returns. Meanwhile, there are growing indications that fewer investors are shifting into hedge funds while others are pulling out. Fund investors are dealing with their own problems: Many use borrowed money to invest in the funds and are finding it more difficult to borrow.
That all makes it likely that more hedge funds will shutter in the months ahead, forcing them to sell their investments, further weighing on the market.
Debt-driven financial traumas have a long history, of course, from the Great Depression to the S&L crisis to the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s. Neither economists nor policymakers have easy solutions. Cutting interest rates and writing stimulus checks to families can help — and may have prevented or delayed a deep recession. But, at least in this instance, they don’t suffice.
In such circumstances, governments almost invariably experiment with solutions with varying degrees of success. Franklin Delano Roosevelt unleashed an alphabet soup of new agencies and a host of new regulations in the aftermath of the market crash of 1929. In the 1990s, Japan embarked on a decade of often-wasteful government spending to counter the aftereffects of a bursting bubble. President George H.W. Bush and Congress created the Resolution Trust Corp. to take and sell the assets of failed thrifts. Hong Kong’s free-market government went on a massive stock-buying spree in 1998, buying up shares of every company listed in the benchmark Hang Seng index. It ended up packaging them into an exchange traded fund and making money.
Today, Mr. Bernanke is taking out his playbook, said NYU economist Mr. Gertler, "and rewriting it as we go."
Merrill Lynch & Co.’s emergency sale to Bank of America Corp. last weekend was an example of the perniciousness and unpredictability of deleveraging. In the past year, Merrill has hired a new chief executive, written off .4 billion in assets and raised billion in equity capital.
But Merrill couldn’t keep up. The more it raised, the more it was forced to write off. When Merrill CEO John Thain attended a meeting with the New York Fed and other Wall Street executives last week, he saw that Merrill was the next most vulnerable brokerage firm. "We watched Bear and Lehman. We knew we could be next," said one Merrill executive. Fearful that its lenders would shut the firm off, he sold to Bank of America.
This crisis is complicated by innovative financial instruments that Wall Street created and distributed. They’re making it harder for officials and Wall Street executives to know where the next set of risks are hiding and also spreading the fault lines of the crisis.
The latest trouble spot is an area called credit-default swaps, which are private contracts that let firms trade bets on whether a borrower is going to default. When a default occurs, one party pays off the other. The value of the swaps rise and fall as market reassesses the risk that a company won’t be able to honor its obligations. Firms use these instruments both as insurance — to hedge their exposures to risk — and to wager on the health of other companies. There are now credit-default swaps on more than trillion in debt — up from about 4 million a decade ago.
One of the big new players in the swaps game was AIG, the world’s largest insurer and a major seller of credit-default swaps to financial institutions and companies. When the credit markets were booming, many firms bought this insurance from AIG, believing the insurance giant’s strong credit ratings and large balance sheet could protect them from bond and loan defaults. AIG, which collected generous premiums for the swaps, believed the risk of default was low on many securities it insured.
As of June 30, an AIG unit had written credit-default swaps on more than 6 billion in credit assets, including mortgage securities, corporate loans and complex structured products. Last year, when rising subprime mortgage delinquencies damaged the value of many securities AIG had insured, the firm was forced to book large write-downs on its derivative positions. That spooked investors, who reacted by dumping its shares, making it harder for AIG to raise the capital it increasingly needed.
Credit default swaps "didn’t cause the problem, but they certainly exacerbated the financial crisis," says Leslie Rahl, president of Capital Market Risk Advisors, a consulting firm in New York. The sheer volumes of outstanding CDS contracts — and the fact that they trade directly between institutions, without centralized clearing — intertwined the fates of many large banks and brokerages.
Few financial crises have been sorted out in modern times without massive government intervention. Increasingly, officials are coming to the conclusion that even more might be needed. A big problem: The Fed can and has provided short-term money to sound, but struggling, institutions that are out of favor. It can, and has, reduced the interest rates it influences to attempt to reduce borrowing costs through the economy and encourage investment and spending.
But it is ill-equipped to provide the capital that financial institutions now desperately need to shore up their finances and expand lending.
In normal times, capital-starved companies usually can raise capital on their own. In the current crisis, a number of big Wall Street firms, including Citigroup, have turned to sovereign wealth funds, the government-controlled pools of money.
But both on Wall Street and in Washington, there is increasing expectation that U.S. taxpayers will either take the bad assets off the hands of financial institutions so they can raise capital, or put taxpayer capital into the companies, as the Treasury has agreed to do with mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
One proposal was raised by Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the House Financial Services Committee. Rep. Frank advocated creating an analog to the Resolution Trust Corp., which took assets from failed banks and thrifts and found buyers over several years.
"When you have a big loss in the marketplace, there are only three people that can take the loss — the bondholders, the shareholders and the government," said William Seidman, who led the RTC from 1989 to 1991. "That’s the dance we’re seeing right now. Are we going to shove this loss into the hands of the taxpayers?"
The RTC seemed controversial and ambitious at the time. Any analog today would be even more complex. The RTC dispensed mostly of commercial real estate. Today’s troubled assets are complex debt securities — many of which include pieces of other instruments, which in turn include pieces of yet others, many steps removed from the actual mortgages or consumer loans on which they’re based. Unraveling these strands will be tedious and getting at the underlying collateral, difficult.
In the early stages of this crisis, regulators saw that their rules didn’t fit the rapidly changing financial system they were asked to oversee. Investment banks, at the core of the crisis, weren’t as closely monitored by the Securities and Exchange Commission as commercial banks were by their regulators.
The government has a system to close failed banks, created after the Great Depression in part to avoid sudden runs by depositors. Now, runs happen in spheres regulators barely understand, such as the repurchase agreement, or repo, market, in which investment banks fund their day-to-day operations. And regulators have no process for handling the failure of an investment bank like Lehman. Insurers like AIG aren’t even federally regulated.
Regulators have all but promised that more banks will fail in the coming months. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. is drawing up a plan to raise the premiums it charges banks so that it can rebuild the fund it uses to back deposits. Examiners are tightening their leash on banks across the country.
One pleasant mystery is why the financial crisis hasn’t hit the economy harder — at least so far. "This financial crisis hasn’t yet translated into fewer…companies starting up, less research and development, less marketing," Ivan Seidenberg, chief executive of Verizon Communications, said Wednesday. "We haven’t seen that yet. I’m sure every company is keeping their eyes on it."
At 6.1%, the unemployment rate remains well below the peak of 7.8% in 1992, amid the S&L crisis.
In part, that’s because government has reacted aggressively. The Fed’s classic mistake that led to the Great Depression was that it tightened monetary policy when it should have eased. Mr. Bernanke didn’t repeat that error. And Congress moved more swiftly to approve fiscal stimulus than most Washington veterans thought possible.
In part, the broader economy has held mostly steady because exports have been so strong at just the right moment, a reminder the global economy’s importance to the U.S. And in part, it’s because the U.S. economy is demonstrating impressive resilience, as information technology allows executives to react more quickly to emerging problems and — to the discomfort of workers — companies are quicker to adjust wages, hiring and work hours when the economy softens.
But the risk remains that Wall Street’s woes will spread to Main Street, as credit tightens for consumers and business. Already, U.S. auto makers have been forced to tighten the terms on their leasing programs, or abandon writing leases themselves altogether, because of problems in their finance units. Goldman Sachs economists’ optimistic scenario is a couple years of mild recession or painfully slow economy growth.
—Aaron Lucchetti, Mark Whitehouse, Gregory Zuckerman and Sudeep Reddy contributed to this article.Write to Jon Hilsenrath at jon.hilsenrath@wsj.com, Serena Ng at serena.ng@wsj.com and Damian Paletta at damian.paletta@wsj.com

Thai gold clerks in a market in downtown Chiang Mai


Image by madaboutasia
Thai people buy and sell gold as a local commodity. In many ways, they tend to trust a hard asset like gold rather than using banks. DSCN2456-1_DCE

Nice Clean Energy Index photos

A few nice clean energy index images I found:

Clean energy at work for earthday!


Image by daveeza
Happy Earthday, enjoy the view from Freiburg, Germany!
The Solar Settlement in Freiburg –

The Solar Settlement generates 420,000 kWh of solar energy from a total photovoltaic output of about 445 kW peak per year. If one calculates the energy savings from the optimal efficiency, here annually 200,000 liters of oil and 500 tons of CO2 are saved. For the first time worldwide, even until today, PlusEnergy was implemented as a community in Freiburg – receiving heavy worldwide response and exciting awards.

For the undertaking, financing and marketing of this PlusEnergy pilot-project a building development company was founded. A portion of the marketing was completed through four ‚Freiburg Solar Funds,‘ corporate real estate funds and simultaneously an ethical-ecological financial investment.

The Solar Settlement in Freiburg – the Sun Ship in the foreground

▲ to top ► www.plusenergiehaus.de

www.rolfdisch.de/index.php?p=home&pid=78&L=1&…

Voiture à hydrogène BMW de démonstration (Clean Energy) devant le palais de la découverte (Paris)


Image by dalbera
La BMW Hydrogen 7, est la première voiture de série fonctionnant à l’hydrogène. La combustion de l’hydrogène ne rejette que de la vapeur d’eau dans l’atmosphère. C’est de l’énergie totalement propre.

Le véhicule est en démonstration devant le Palais de la Découverte à Paris, à l’occasion de l’ouverture d’une salle consacrée à l’hydrogène et à ses applications.

www.palais-decouverte.fr/index.php?id=accueil2

NASDAQ Updates Key Index

Trends Push New Ventures Into Investment Spotlight NASDAQ has announced new additions to its Clean Edge Green Energy Index, with the following five companies added to the Index: Broadwind Energy, Inc. (Nasdaq:BWEN), Comverge, Inc. (Nasdaq:COMV), Capstone Turbine Corporation (Nasdaq:CPST), ESCO Technologies Inc. (NYSE:ESE), and National Semiconductor Corporation (NYSE:NSM). Of the five new additions to the index, two fall under the ten dollar per share price level—Broadwind Energy and Capstone Turbine. Distributed by Tubemogul.

Nice Commodities Investments photos

Check out these commodities investments images:

Commodities Now September 2010


Image by isherwoodproduction
Commodities Now is the global magazine for the traded commodity – covering the majot traded commodity sectors – and the official publication for the Commodity Business Awards. Since 1997 we have been developing our expertise and market connections to provide commodity market professionals and the wider investment community with dedicated research and intelligence on the commodity complex.
As well as the published magazine, our online presence – commodities–now.com – provides updated news, key press releases, data, charts, research and reports dedicated to these markets.

investment lights 2


Image by papagerak
spending a perfekt day with big mate est0 to "ehem. bundesgästehaus petersberg". for an investment fund conference with the topic "commodities and energy funds", it was a very nice combination of business and friendship. made some pics, but est0 made muuuuch mooooore thank you for this fine trip!

NIBTamilee Webb Fit to the Hits Rock Hard Assets DVD

Hard Assets on eBay:

US $12.25 End Date: Monday Mar-07-2011 7:35:46 PST Buy It Now for only: US $12.25 Buy it now | Add to watch list

US $5.96 End Date: Tuesday Mar-08-2011 9:21:45 PST Buy It Now for only: US $5.96 Buy it now | Add to watch list

US $6.57 End Date: Saturday Mar-12-2011 19:29:37 PST Buy It Now for only: US $6.57 Buy it now | Add to watch list

Managed Futures and Hedge Funds

Managed Futures and Hedge Funds

Are you in the market for an alternative investment? If you are one of the prudent investors who is seeking to allocate a portion of assets to strategies not normally employed by the investing public this article is a must read.

There are primarily two forms of alternative investment management, hedge funds and managed futures. Hedge funds are invested in a vast number of products, both exchange listed and Over-the-Counter (OTC) derivatives. Managed futures are generally only invested in exchange listed commodity futures contracts, regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Be careful! If the wrong investment is chosen the investor may be left with a bad experience of alternative investment products. This article will focus on the very important issues of transparency, liquidity, lock ups, returns and taxes in regards to the alternative asset class. Readers should leave with a better understanding of a few of the primary issues involving any alternative asset investment.

TRANSPARENCY

Transparency is an issue with any investment. Most investors want to know exactly what their money is doing at all times. Giving money to someone who claims to have returns of X without knowing what the manager is actually doing is generally a bad idea. Transparency is becoming more and more of an issue as the universe of investable products grows exponentially. The recent hedge fund “blow-ups” are a case in point.

Get Best Penny Stock Pick Program to help you to make profit!

Hedge funds are alternative investment vehicles that can be invested in anything from Johnson and Johnson common stock to over the counter derivatives based in Zimbabwe. The universe of products is virtually limitless. When an investor becomes a limited partner of a hedge fund, in most cases he/she is giving it free reign over the funds they have invested. If the manager chooses to, he/she could invest in waffles and chances are the investor would never have any idea. Hedge funds are not required to tell investors exactly where capital is being deployed. To make matters worse, many of the products do not have a closing value at the end of the day, so even if the investors knew what the funds were invested in they would have no idea what their investment was actually worth on any given day. There is absolutely no transparency. All the investors get is a quarterly statement informing them of gains or losses and maybe some commentary if the manager is not too busy. In some cases investors hear that, virtually overnight, more than 50% of their funds have been lost. Long-Term Capital Management is the most infamous case of a hedge fund “blowing up,” but recently there have been quite a few more that are going down in history, such as Amaranth’s $6 billion loss in 2006, Absolute Capital Groups’ 30-40% loss and Focus Capital’s 80% loss in early 2008.

The story is much clearer if the investor is involved in a managed futures product, or with a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA). A CTA generally has a very specific strategy that is defined in the investor’s disclosure document, which is similar to a prospectus. The CTA is required to state exactly what products the investor’s money will be invested in as well as exactly how the manager plans to invest. What’s more, once invested with a CTA investors will receive a statement every time a trade is placed. At the end of every day the products in which investor capital is deployed are marked with a closing price determined by the exchange. This allows the investor to know exactly what his/her investment is worth.

It is really up to the investor as to what makes him or her comfortable. If one person does fine not know where his assets are invested then the transparency issue may not need to be considered, but for most of us it is of the utmost importance.

LIQUIDITY

Liquidity: a business, economics or investment term that refers to an assets ability to be easily converted to cash through an act of buying or selling without causing a significant movement in the price and with minimum loss of value. (defined by wikipedia.org)

Liquidity can be an issue with both hedge funds and managed futures, but a good manager will tend to avoid instruments that are illiquid or difficult to trade in and out of.

As stated previously, hedge fund managers can and do invest in a vast array of products. Many of these products are OTC derivatives or products that are traded between banks and the hedge funds directly. If the hedge fund buys an OTC derivative from a bank, and later decides it needs to sell that particular product back, the bank alone determines what they will buy it back for, or worse, if they can buy it back at all. In that case the hedge fund may not be able to get out of a losing position.

Liquidity is an issue that has gripped a number of hedge funds lately. Many have been forced to shut down because they were invested in highly illiquid derivatives linked to sub-prime mortgages. When the counter parties began to refuse to buy the products back the funds had no choice but to liquidate their portfolios at extremely discounted prices and shut their doors, or refuse investors’ requests to withdraw their money.

Unfortunately liquidity can be an issue for managed futures as well. Most managers only trade in highly liquid commodities; however, there are times when even the most liquid commodity can become illiquid very fast. Illiquidity can be caused by many factors, from politics to supply and demand imbalances to general investor fear and greed. A prudent manager will prevent investors from being too exposed to liquidity risks by implementing some sort of hedge, diversification or proper position sizing of the account.

When dealing in listed markets, as most managed futures products do, the counter party to any trade usually has a number of other counter parties willing to buy or sell at specified prices. This kind of open auction system generally allows for prices to be fair. To give investors even more comfort each account is guaranteed by the exchange clearing house through customer margin deposits, meaning that the chance of a counter party defaulting on any given transaction is drastically reduced. However, when dealing with obscure OTC markets, as many hedge funds do, most of the time there is only one counter party to the trade, meaning it is not guaranteed by anyone, which not only makes the chance of default higher but at the same time makes the likelihood of getting a fair price on any given trade much less.

When investing in a hedge fund or managed futures product it is important to understand how liquidity can affect the investment. If a manager is using too much leverage or is consistently involved in thinly traded OTC products that are less liquid it may be a sign that investing in that vehicle at that time is not wise.

Get Best Penny Stock Pick Program to help you to make profit!

LOCK UP PERIOD

A lock up period is the time after the initial investment in which the investor is not allowed to withdraw funds from that particular vehicle. After the specified lock up period investors are free to withdraw funds as defined in the disclosure document of each hedge fund.

Almost all hedge funds have a lock up period. This period can range from as little as three months to longer than two years. Generally the more established the fund the longer the lock up period. A lock up period is generally good for managers and not so good for investors. If a manager has a lock up period of one year and immediately after making an investment the trading starts to go poorly, that manager has a right to continue trading that money until the lock up period is over; because the investor has previously agreed to the terms and conditions in the disclosure document he or she is not able to request redemption until the specified time period is up.

Managed futures products are different. Most managed futures products do not have lock up periods. There are a few that have lock ups ranging anywhere from three months to a year, but this is not the status quo in the industry. If an investment in a managed futures product needs to be redeemed it can generally be taken care of within a few hours. This is very beneficial if you have taxes due, college tuition that needs to be paid or any unexpected expenses that comes up.

Lock up periods will be foreign to most investors who have not invested in alternative investments before. Make sure when reading the disclosure document that the lock up and withdrawal periods are properly discussed. Also, note that in many cases the lock up period is an area that can be negotiated to the investor’s benefit.

RETURNS

Returns are returns, right? Wrong! Returns are a very deceiving form of analysis for any alternative investment. Most investors make investment decisions based on previous returns, but this is a flawed concept. The main issue is that past returns have absolutely nothing to do with future returns. This has been proven time and time again as managers that were once out-performing begin to under-perform and managers that were struggling rise to the top. Wise investors will not base their investment decisions on past returns or assumptions made about future returns.

The fact of the matter is that no manager really knows what returns will be from year to year. Managers can target a certain return but there is absolutely no guarantee that the goal will be achieved. If any manager, whether hedge fund or CTA, specifically promises a return that is a sign to seek a different manager. Likewise, if a manager touts his/her past returns it is a sign he/she does not fully understand that returns are completely unrelated to each other and have no bearing on the future.

There are numerous databases in which managers can post monthly returns and potential investors view them, but this is completely the wrong way to make any investment decision. Chasing returns leads investors down the wrong path and can have devastating effects on their capital (see “Transparency”).

What investors need to do is search through these alternative investment managers by strategy, not by returns. The investor should pick a few advisors from each category after reading about the managers’ approach to the market. Once a few are decided on, the investor should call each manager and request more information and/or a meeting. All managers will have a disclosure document and possibly some marketing material that can be given to potential investors. Meeting the manager of a hedge fund can be a difficult task unless the investor is placing a very large sum. CTAs, however, are generally much more open and willing to meet with investors, so getting a meeting with them is entirely possible.

Once the proper due diligence is done and the investor likes the manager’s strategy and approach, an investment can be made. Be careful not to invest too many assets with any one manager or specific style, as that is not proper diversification. It is wise for the investor to build a portfolio of alternative asset managers over a wide range of strategies, as this may reduce the risk of any one particular manager or style.

TAXES

Hedge funds often provide the investor with very unfavorable tax treatment because they are invested in many different products all over the world. This may have a vast array of consequences on the investor’s overall taxes. Hedge funds uniformly report investors’ gains or losses in August after each tax year, forcing an extension of filing. Additionally, the tax returns are very complex, often over 30 pages for each fund invested in. To try and explain all the possible tax consequences of a hedge fund would probably require an entire book. In the interest of time the entire spectrum of hedge fund tax accounting simply cannot be delved into at this point.

For managed futures products the tax accounting is very simple. Since most trades take place within Regulated Futures Contracts (RFC) regulated by the CFTC, contracts receive Internal Revenue Code Section 1256 treatment. In this case 60% of profits are taxed at the long-term capital gains rate and 40% are taxed at the short-term capital gains rate. For a profitable managed futures product this effective tax rate of 23% provides a 12% advantage over hedge funds that trade frequently. This can, however, be a stumbling block in the case of large losses. When a loss is recorded and 60/40 treatment has been elected the investor is only allowed to carry forward $3000 of those losses every year. If the investor’s loss is large this can be a real headache, as he/she will be carrying forward losses indefinitely. There is a bright side, and that is if the investor has created a portfolio of managed futures products and another manager has produced gains the investor can write off the loss against the gains of that other manager.

In the end calculating taxes for a managed futures product is much simpler than for a hedge fund. For some investors this may not be an issue, as their CPAs will manage everything, but it would be important to consult with the CPA prior to investing to make sure he/she fully understands the implications involved with the new investment.

Get Best Penny Stock Pick Program to help you to make profit!

Retrieved from “http://www.articlesbase.com/day-trading-articles/managed-futures-and-hedge-funds-1617896.html“

I am starting a hedge fund for financing independent movie producers, how do I find investors ?

I am looking for lots of individuals willing to be small investors but want to enjoy the returns that can only be gained by the big hedge fund members. I want to issue shares in the management company to interested investors and in turn they’ll have a share in the company before the company grows large. If you are intersted in providing me with creative ideas and financing options, respond to this inquiry

Closed-End Funds, Exchange-Traded Funds, and Hedge Funds: Origins, Functions, and Literature

Product Description
“Closed-End Funds, Exchange-Traded Funds, and Hedge Funds: Origins, Functions, and Literature is a concise and valuable book that will be of interest to individual investors, financial professionals, and academic researchers, alike. It provides a brief history and institutional discussion of these investment companies and also presents a summary of the research on these funds. Investment practitioners will find the book useful as a reference and as a quick refresher… More >>

Closed-End Funds, Exchange-Traded Funds, and Hedge Funds: Origins, Functions, and Literature

This Week In ETFs: January 22nd Edition

This Week In ETFs: January 22nd Edition
This week featured a shortened trading schedule as markets were closed Monday in observance of Martin Luther King Jr. Day. But the four day trading week did not leave any shortage of major news events to move the markets.

Read more on Business Insider

2/26/2009: Earth, Wind & Fire: The Cleantech Opportunity Today

The Lester Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation presents “Earth, Wind & Fire: The Clean Tech Opportunity Today” at the Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley. This Berkeley Entrepreneurs Forum panel discussion addresses the opportunities and challenges facing entrepreneurs and investors in geothermal, wind and biofuels. Participants: Jon Bonanno, Principle Power; Richard Chow, ThermaSource; Susan Preston, CalCEF Angel Fund; Dr. Chris Somerville, Energy Biosciences Institute. Moderator: Jerome Engel, Executive Director, Lester Center. (February 26, 2009) www.haas.berkeley.edu entrepreneurship.berkeley.edu