Alpha's annual list of the Hedge Fund 100, the biggest single-manager hedge funds by AUM, is out today, and though it's not as fun without the personal touch, it's still a good time. The Top Ten was mostly a reshuffling of 2008's names, with Man Group, Brevan Howard and Soros cracking the list, and Barclays Global Investors sadly getting knocked out, down to slot 12.
Nice work by Alpha but our criteria are a bit different and obviously yours are too. So, we give you Dealbreaker's Top 10 Hedge Funds for 2009.
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 2:35PM
So I take it Stanford Asset, Madoff, et. al. are being rung up as DNF (Did not finish)?
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 2:36PM
So, how are the dealbreaker advertising revenues y-o-y? Pls break out the customer segment 'recruiting'.
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 2:39PM
@2- better with every story you click and comment on, sweetums.
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 2:40PM
@3 i know, i'm here to help
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 2:40PM
Ken Griffin is not happy.
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 2:42PM
@1- they got an "I" for "incomplete" or a "W" for "withdrawn".
Bess, great tag. Naturally.
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 2:42PM
how is Larry Robbins' weight Y-O-Y?
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 2:44PM
Do chicks really dig big thick hedge funds?
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 2:45PM
I'd like to know the answer to @7, and also the same thing for steve cohen.
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 2:46PM
no! it's the motion in the ocean!
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 2:48PM
Lenny Dykstra is not amused.
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 2:51PM
do you think Jim Simons has smoked 5 packs of fags in response to this news (4-->10)?
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 2:54PM
Oh well. At least Falcone still has a bangin' hot wife.
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 2:56PM
@13 speaks truth:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://nymag.com/nymetro/shopping/fashion/columns/look/lookbook051124_275.jpg&imgrefurl=http://nymag.com/nymetro/shopping/fashion/columns/look/15109/&usg=__LEeUkuK6sWoQiEfvewTVNge4PnU=&h=565&w=275&sz=31&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=dKRh9Z9ZvMA3yM:&tbnh=134&tbnw=65&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlisa%2Bfalcone%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3DkGN%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 2:57PM
a better one of the mrs. falcone:
http://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/i/partypictures/11_19_07/AMNH2_Pics/6139-Falcones,-Ellen-V.-Futter,-and-Mignones_DF.jpg
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 2:58PM
its interesting that Harbinger lost so much of their asset base YOY. Didn't they have + performance last year?
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 2:59PM
Except those numbers don't represent returns (or losses) - they just represent the change in assets under management. Some firms (like Farallon) were killed with redemptions because they were able to offer investors liquidity when others weren't.
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 3:01PM
@17- and it said that they represented returns or losses where, exactly, in the post? see the tags. this is about straight up shrinkage, cut and dry.
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 3:02PM
@17- and how about citadel and glenview and GLG?
Posted by Cliff Huxtable , Apr 22, 2009 3:03PM
Could this be in a more annoying format? Anyone have this in Excel and willing to share?
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 3:05PM
Too bad you can't "bolt on" profits!
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 3:06PM
@20- click the link you lazy fuck.
Posted by Equity Private , Apr 22, 2009 3:06PM
"Posted by guest, Apr 22, 2009 2:59PM
Except those numbers don't represent returns (or losses) - they just represent the change in assets under management. Some firms (like Farallon) were killed with redemptions because they were able to offer investors liquidity when others weren't."
Could you maybe give us a primer on bid/ask markets next?
Thanks.
Posted by Cliff Huxtable , Apr 22, 2009 3:13PM
@22 - problem isn't the link, it's inability to sort that's the problem.
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 3:19PM
@cliff- who the hell would have this listed in Excel besides, I dunno, Alpha Magazine?
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 3:28PM
-@17
Thank you Dr Obvious.
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 3:29PM
@Cliff - Yes it could be in a more annoying format, on the other hand your whineyness could not be more annoying.
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 3:32PM
17 must be someone really smart and powerful.
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 3:40PM
If anyone actually purchased the whole list please post it somewhere or email it to me at guest@dealbreaker.com
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 4:39PM
I am amazed that no one has mentioned AQR.
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 5:52PM
OK, AQR!
-You're welcome
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 6:04PM
@29- click the god damn link, the entire list is there
Posted by guest , Apr 22, 2009 9:15PM
@20, sense of entitlement much?
Posted by guest , Apr 23, 2009 6:32AM
size does matter ... unless you're AQR.
Posted by guest , Apr 23, 2009 5:10PM
The numbers are worthless. How do they even know which firms are the top 100 unless they know all the large firms? If they know all the large firms, why not publish them all?
Most of the list is probably guess work. It is doubtful they even call most of the funds to seek verification.