Talk:Empirica Capital

Hope

I hope it is possible to find more information about Empirica, to make this article longer. Ulner (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claim that "Taleb returned the funds in 2004 to investors to become a writer and scholar. "

The article currently states that Empirica's fund was shut down because "Taleb returned the funds in 2004 to investors to become a writer and scholar." The "Mr. Volatility and the Swan" article[1] says that Taleb said it, so it should be cited to him, not stated as a fact. Deleting that caveat was inappropriate. Reliable sources tell us that the fund was shut down after "meh" results, as the Wall Street Journal puts it. --John Nagle (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Claims substantiated. Sorry Nagle, try something else --this is UNPROFESSIONAL. The Bloomberg article says "returned 380 million to investors" The Risk Maverick, Stephanie Baker-Said, Bloomberg L.P.. This misuse of articles about Nassim that don't agree with Nagle is quite annoying. John Nagle (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IbnAmioun (talk • contribs) 20:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that article doesn't have hard numbers on returns. See page 47. As is typical for Taleb, the numbers for the good year are given, but not the average over time. See "Nassim "Black Swan" Taleb Busted For Exaggerating Returns"[2] --John Nagle (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Bloomberg and WSJ report discussions with investors to whom money was returned which is strange you would ignore the link. And this "busted business" is libel and turned out to be part of a smear campaign (someone like you Nagle) and there is evidence that Taleb CORRECTED the GQ article. You should start citing papers and fact checked reputable sources not BLOGS --the article would have made it to WSJ or Bloomberg had it not been just as you are doing, exploiting absence of evidence. See Reuters "Emails to Felix Salmon" [3]. IbnAmioun (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be most interesting to see how the amount of money returned to investors compared with the amount of money invested. It would be unfortunate if a lot of the money was invested after the one exceptional year. Surely an "authorized rep" of Taleb would be able to obtain such information? Elroch (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

False accusation

My last edit to this article was reverted by Mr. Taleb with a claim that the "computations are not right". Here is the calculation that gives a compounded mean annual return of 4.64% from quoted annual returns of 56.85%, -8.38%, -13.18% and -3.92%.

(1.5685 * 0.9162 * 0.8682 * 0.9608)^(1/4) = 1.0464

With all due respect to Mr. Taleb, his opinion does not carry sufficient weight to overrule the laws of arithmetic.81.111.221.4 (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous Person- Not only are you quoting numbers from sources not compatible with Wiki standards but you are either mistakingly or deliberately twisting facts. The returns for 2003 are for TWO MONTHS so how are you factoring them for the whole year? your exponent is WRONG. I think you are suspiciously twisting facts, numbers and reputations here. There is an utter disdain of both ethics and finance 101 in your statement. Last but not the least (and not surprisingly) you obviously dont seem to know or care about the difference between an Insurance and a Total Return Product. Please be a little more diligent and ethical to adhere to Wiki Standards. Thanks

Asim samiuddin (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Asim.

That's the standard way to compute returns. You multiply the returns for each year, then take the root of the number of years. It would be better if we had audited numbers, but provided that the numbers are cited to the source, they're OK for Wikipedia. They're certainly better than cherry-picked single year numbers used for promotional purposes. --John Nagle (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

yes. But you do not compute two months the same as a year. This was the point of Asim. I think this is elementary. If you are not sure how to compute it, do not post numbers.

besides, the source of the numbers contains a summation, and without a clear idea about how it should be done, you want to change them. This is absurd. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to do computation etc. this is all original research.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by YechezkelZilber (talk • contribs) 20:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, Wikipedia guidance explicitly says that simple calculations and logical inferences are entirely appropriate, and do not amount to original research. 81.111.221.4 (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Any comments from other than the single-purpose accounts? --John Nagle (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Little knowledge is a lot more dangerous than NO KNOWLEDGE and these discussions prove it. Asim samiuddin (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Asim.

please handle the issues themlves rather than going to whether you like the accounts or not Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I find it absurd to use a document and then post numbers that are different from these presented there.

besides, the WSJ reported that empirica made profit in 2003 and 2004. And WSJ is way more credible than the blog used here. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidance specifically states that simple calculations and logical inferences ARE appropriate in articles and do NOT amount to original research. Thanks to Asim samiuddin's for pointing out that the original calculation failed to notice that the returns for 2003 were for two months - the article will be modified to take this into account. The article containing the data about the account meets the requirements of a citable source, and is NOT in contradiction with the WSJ article except that the WSJ clearly rounds the return in 2000 up to 60% and was based on a different time interval in 2003 (but did not give even rounded data for this). Hence I will enter a corrected geometric mean return into the article - please edit this only if you identify equally detailed data for a longer timespan. The trivial calculation is: (1.5685 * 0.9162 * 0.8682 * 0.9608)^(12/38) = 1.0589 81.111.221.4 (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

looking around, almost all hedge fund entries do not handle returns.

Most likely because of issues raised here. There are many funds in a group, usually. and it is not easy to get full time data for all the funds, The criteria, the auditions etc. are not clear either. (geometric of arithmetic? For example).Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The point is mute

Simple, to all stalkers. I was told that the returns on the page are NOT issued by Empirica Capital and correspond to the analysis by some group doing hearsay analysis. And published on, of course, an invalid source for an encyclopedia. IbnAmioun (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The published returns are from Business Insider, which is an acceptable source under Wikipedia rules. See WP:RS. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to corporate PR. --John Nagle (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Business Insider? This is beneath even Nagle. Let me quote Wiki (for business insider) verbatim -"Henry Blodget is the CEO and Editor-In-Chief, a Yale graduate who previously worked on Wall Street before being barred from the securities industry after a conviction for securities fraud". Obviously are very reliable source and WSJ provides returns not in agreement with Business Insider.This sort of stuff belongs on blogs not wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asim samiuddin (talk • contribs) 04:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Deputy editor Nicholas Carlson previously worked at Internet.com and Gawker Media's Silicon Valley gossip blog, Valleywag.com. Asim Asim samiuddin (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Asim Nagle is obviously on a mission now and is quoting blog style sources with really poor ethical and gossip background. This is not acceptable and it needs to end now. Asim samiuddin (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Asim

I encourage all to repeat your best arguments here: [[4]]. Ulner (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not about the data

This discussion is strange. My point is not about the data. It is about the idea of original research and commentary. What the table shows here, 40% returns (arith, ~30% geom.) in a 3 years 2 month is extremely high by any standard. The errors are small; but they are there. (the commentary "meh" on the blog does not match the data and is so unprofessional). A statement saying "Empirica made close to x% cumulative in its 3 years of existence" would be factual (2003 is partial and is the only one that contradicts WSJ/Bloomberg more than variations from transaction costs). But the principle of using a bad source (a gossip one) would be a disastrous precedent for an encyclopedia.IbnAmioun (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you use other data to get the figures of 40% and 30%, or just pluck them out of thin air? The compounded return from the numbers given for 2000 to Feb 2003 is 19.99%, while the total arithmetic return (a far from ideal measure) is 31.37%.

The most misleading thing would be to quote a rounded up value for the best year's return, without mentioning the magnitude of the following years' losses. Providing such a cherry-picked presentation undermines the neutrality of Wikipedia. That is clearly the reason that more neutral contributors have been keen to get the most complete data possible for Empirica's performance. Elroch (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the 30% was a genuine mistake since I did not pay attention to the details (took the 40% from the average 10% Nagle had on table) and did not take data too seriously.IbnAmioun (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed 100% but thats been the trend here and on Nassim Taleb's Wiki page as well. People are proudly and unapologetically quoting such ridiculous gossip type of sources in an attempt to vilify and slander Taleb. Theres a place for that (blogs)if people dont have the time to do anyting better but Wikipedia shouldnt be it. Asim samiuddin (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Asim

The unsupportable and inappropriate language used in this post ("gossip", "vilify", "slander") strongly suggests the writer has an emotional involvement in the subject of the article, and a non-neutral point of view. There is a dispute about the notability of the source, but there is no evidence that the data is incorrect. If you can't discuss the facts in an unemotional way, leave the discussion to those who are capable of doing so. Thank you. Elroch (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Calling a gossip source gossip is not being Non Neutral. Business Insider is a online source run by people with very shady backgrounds. and yes the guy was running a gossip website prior. People not knowing how to calculate returns and then quoting them amounts to vilification in my opinion. The data is incorrect solely based on the fact that it does NOT concur with data provided by a much more reputable source i.e. WSJ (Wall St. Journal). Thanks and a Happy New Year to everyone 72.43.112.2 (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Asim

Asim samiuddin (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Asim

Presumably your comment about people not knowing how to calculate returns and then quoting them refers to IbmAmouin's post at the start of this discussion? Or do you have double standards regarding inaccurate numbers that are flattering to Empirica/Taleb? Elroch (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

See discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Hedge_fund_returns_for_Empirica_Capital.. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Standards or No Standards, a Commentary is Required

First, as Prof Taleb authorized rep I find Taleb's fan shameful, rowdy behavior, drunken perhaps, reprehensible.

Happy New Year.

Here is the point. I will not partake of standards on what is and what is not a gossip blog about the returns being "debated" or missing data not missing data (although stopping at the lowest point is highly suspicious). But should any data be put there,or any commentary then by statements of neutrality the following should be included.

"Most of the smear campaign I mentioned earlier revolves around misrepresentation of the insurance-style properties and performance of the hedging strategies for the barbell and “portfolio robustification” associated with Black Swan ideas, a misrepresentation perhaps made credible by the fact that when one observes returns on a short-term basis, one sees nothing relevant except shallow frequent variations (mainly losses). People just forget to cumulate properly and remember frequency rather than total. The real returns, according to the press, were around 60 percent in 2000 and more than 100 percent in 2008, with relatively shallow losses and profits otherwise, so it would be child’s play to infer that returns would be in the triple digits over the past decade (all you need is one good jump). The Standard and Poor’s 500 was down 23 percent over the same ten-year period." in The Black Swan 2nd Ed., p 371 IbnAmioun (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It is mystery to me to whom the insults in the first line of the above post are directed, but remember that personal attacks are unconstructive, and forbidden on Wikipedia.

The quote from Taleb is a rather rose-tinted guess, based on returns from two cherry-picked years. The results from other years (which we know can be double digit losses) are essential to an assessment of the long term returns from a "black swan" strategy. The issue of "insurance products" versus "total return products" is highly relevant. Even if a product provides unimpressive long term returns, if these returns are concentrated at times where stock market investments do badly, the product could have a valuable insurance-like role in a portfolio. But, frankly, even detailed data for two isolated periods of a few years can not give a clear assessment of the value of "black swan" investment products. In addition, there is undoubtedly scope for variations of a black swan strategy, as well as the possibility of versions using higher or lower leverage, all of which will have different long and short term characteristics. Elroch (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This quote is simply a counter to defaming prof Taleb by posting a segment of his strategy (as if they were relevant) and it needs to go wherever returns are mentioned, not a marketing document. Prof Taleb would have put on his web site go there to see if he wants to market or cares about finance at all anymore but he does not like smear campaigns. Furthermore, sir, Wiki is not the place to do original research. Nor is an editor there to judge the link between ideas and the returns of an insurance stratgy.IbnAmioun (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Original research is only forbidden in contributions to articles. My comments were positive and informed ones, intended to throw light on the significance of the sorts of statistics we are discussing. Elroch (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

New data item: [5] Empirica Capital's registration information with the National Futures Association, the "self-regulatory association" for the US futures industry. All this tells us is that the organization operated from no earlier than 06/06/2001 to no later than 01/06/2005. So when Empirica Kurtosis (the fund) was wound up, the parent company did not continue with other funds. --John Nagle (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Restored numbers, but with heavy disclaimers. --John Nagle (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The link you provided does not show the numbers you have sourced. Is there somewhere else on the link that has that information and could you post that link instead of link you posted here [6] LoveMonkey (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The image of a statement is on Scribd at [7]. But we lack its provenance. --John Nagle (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The image from Scribd is not a reliable source. Ulner (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Neither are quotes from Taleb, such as "Taleb returned the funds in 2004 to investors to become a writer and scholar." Compare Patterson in the WSJ: "Mr. Taleb was last seen holstering his trading guns in 2004 after his hedge fund, Empirica Capital LLC, posted several years of lackluster returns." That's a WP:RS, which Taleb's self-serving statement is not. So Taleb's claim has to come out. --John Nagle (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent edit that misrepresents what its sources actually say

I reverted Nagle's recent edit [8] after I checked the sources in the edit and neither sources states mediocre anything. Neither even contains the word. As a matter of fact they stated that if Taleb was actually with the fund during the 2008 meltdown he would have done well. So why are these sources being used to say things that they do not say? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Because, on page 156 of that book, we have "One data point we have of the effectiveness of his (Taleb's) approach is the fact that his investment firm, Empirica Capital LLC, closed in 2004 after several years of mediocre returns. He had one very good year in 2000 (a 60% return) because while everyone else was betting on dot-com, he bet on dot-bomb. But the returns the following years were far enough below the market average that the good times couldn't outweigh the bad for his fund.".[9] --John Nagle (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I added the sentence after the above quote in the article as this out of context. However the author Douglas Hubbard where did he get his degree. I can't find any credentials on him. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

You know, I am going to be bold here and..

1. Remove the Bloomberg article which appears to only mention the Empirica fund on the first page and makes no mention of the performance of the fund.
2. And again remove Douglas W. Hubbard again as well since I can not validate Mr Hubbards book as being a peer-reviewed source. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

John Wiley & Sons is a well-known publishing company and the author seems to be credible and for this reason the Hubbard book is a reliable source. That a book is peer reviewed is not necessary to make it a reliable source. Ulner (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should include the full statement from the Hubbard book - both the negative and positive aspects: The fund was closed in 2004 and according to Douglas Hubbard "after several years of mediocre returns" however "Taleb's trading strategy, if he had continued with it, might have done very well during the crisis of 2008. Ulner (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

OK what is the context here? Ulner the statement is redundant and unfair because insurance funds are supposed to be insignificant until a crisis. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Something strange in the history of all this story all data is in text if this guy nagl has to spend all his life on the web trying to get something bad abut nassim nicholas taleb and can only get something like that ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.46.169.157 (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes as Taleb goes into what he is developing as antifragility. The idea the bad events can cause good things in the systems he is working on.[10] Taleb points out that melt downs are good for his portfolio. LoveMonkey (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)