Superfund also had a very nice 2008: report 1 (PDF) and report 2 (PDF).
- Pages
- About & History
- Acknowledgements
- Affiliates Program
- Books
- Clients: Corporate
- Clients: Individuals
- Clients: Universities
- Contact
- Covel Business Principles
- Critics
- Email Newsletter
- Endorsements
- FAQ
- Influences
- Live Events
- Press Coverage
- Privacy Policy
- Recommended Books
- Resources
- Seminars
- Success Stories
- Support
- Table of Contents
- The Trend
- TurtleTrader Afterword
- Tyrannosaurus Rex
- Value Proposition
- Videos
- Welcome Message
- Categories
- Afterword (20)
- Book News (157)
- Book Reviews (60)
- Critics (52)
- Economics (468)
- Endorsements (31)
- Feedback (192)
- Film (37)
- Holy Grails (521)
- Interviews (35)
- Multimedia (81)
- Not Wall Street (60)
- Poker (4)
- Politics (29)
- Psychology (306)
- Risk Management (47)
- Statistical Thinking (77)
- Systems Trading (29)
- Trading 101 (324)
- Trend Following (448)
January 13th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
What’s with the the July performance each year? And Decembers are just as unique going the other way. Of course, there’s a 50/50 chance that next July will be the same.
Seriously, they had an excellent year. Investors should read their prospectus closely, though. To each his own, but these are really high fees and commissions.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Every manager has their own model, but isn’t the after fee performance, which this is, the important thing? That after fee performance sure looks better than what most mutual fund investors are staring at after the 4th quarter of 08. Doesn’t it?
January 14th, 2009 at 3:37 am
of course one looks at after fees performance, but Superfund is definitely lagging their peers… what is the reason for it? Number one definitely the fees… not only charge they high management fees, but they also take fees from the round turns… and that is a no no for me…
If you have to make 10 to 12% a year before the client gets out of the red, that is not so much interesting for investors…
Quadriga AG has the most decent performance risk adjusted… but this is the old fund with not as outrageous fees yet….
Also you have to compare aples with aples… Superfund is a Trendfollowing CTA and not a mutual fund….
They made 35% in 2008 in their A Strategy… after being flat for the previous 3 years… compare that i.e. with Tulip Trend Fund (2time leveraged Transtrend)… the made 60% in 2008 46% in 2007 25% in 2006 and 13.5% in 2005…
Or take Winton, they made about 17% p.a. over these 4 years with about half the vol…
January 14th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Great performance? Great trend following?
The NAV of the fund FAILED to make new highs for 4 years between 2004 and 2008.
Are we to believe that this was a trendless period for a majority of the financial markets?
January 15th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Hi..
I am an investor at Superfund..
i am realy happy with there returns..
I think fees are in the manager right to garge what ever they want, we as investors must dicide to invest or not.
I am glad to pay there fees and have there returns
Best
January 16th, 2009 at 9:04 am
i can’t help but jump in here. which of those funds above have a 5k investment minimum? i think the fees are in line with all the retail managed futures funds. i am sure winton would be happy to manage your money for much less, just go ahead and wire them 25 million.
Bottom line:
Superfund A - 13 years - 18% average
Superfund B - 9 years - 25% average
Superfund C - 8 years - 31% average
some other funds did better from 2004 - 2007, perhaps because superfund had higher highs, so the vol and drawdowns look higher, but in my opinion those funds added other strategies and are not 100% pure trend followers. that is why superfund crushed all of them last year, worst performance from +35% for A, Superfund C, which is not in the USA, was up +75%. look in the long run, and their are only 3 or 4 CTAs of that caliber.
January 16th, 2009 at 10:24 am
its inwestor not investor
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Are there ANY funds with a 5K Minimum??