Sunday, 21 August 2011

Technical Analysis: What Is A Chart?


By Cory JanssenChad Langager and Casey Murphy

In technical analysis, charts are similar to the charts that you see in any business setting. A chart is simply a graphical representation of a series of prices over a set time frame. For example, a chart may show a stock's price movement over a one-year period, where each point on the graph represents the closing price for each day the stock is traded:

Figure 1

Figure 1 provides an example of a basic chart. It is a representation of the price movements of a stock over a 1.5 year period. The bottom of the graph, running horizontally (x-axis), is the date or time scale. On the right hand side, running vertically (y-axis), the price of the security is shown. By looking at the graph we see that in October 2004 (Point 1), the price of this stock was around $245, whereas in June 2005 (Point 2), the stock's price is around $265. This tells us that the stock has risen between October 2004 and June 2005.

Chart Properties There are several things that you should be aware of when looking at a chart, as these factors can affect the information that is provided. They include the time scale, the price scale and the price point properties used.

The Time Scale The time scale refers to the range of dates at the bottom of the chart, which can vary from decades to seconds. The most frequently used time scales are intraday, daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly and annually. The shorter the time frame, the more detailed the chart. Each data point can represent the closing price of the period or show the open, the high, the low and the close depending on the chart used.

Intraday charts plot price movement within the period of one day. This means that the time scale could be as short as five minutes or could cover the whole trading day from the opening bell to the closing bell.

Daily charts are comprised of a series of price movements in which each price point on the chart is a full day’s trading condensed into one point. Again, each point on the graph can be simply the closing price or can entail the open, high, low and close for the stock over the day. These data points are spread out over weekly, monthly and even yearly time scales to monitor both short-term and intermediate trends in price movement.

Weekly, monthly, quarterly and yearly charts are used to analyze longer term trends in the movement of a stock's price. Each data point in these graphs will be a condensed version of what happened over the specified period. So for a weekly chart, each data point will be a representation of the price movement of the week. For example, if you are looking at a chart of weekly data spread over a five-year period and each data point is the closing price for the week, the price that is plotted will be the closing price on the last trading day of the week, which is usually a Friday.



The Price Scale and Price Point Properties 
The price scale is on the right-hand side of the chart. It shows a stock's current price and compares it to past data points. This may seem like a simple concept in that the price scale goes from lower prices to higher prices as you move along the scale from the bottom to the top. The problem, however, is in the structure of the scale itself. A scale can either be constructed in a linear (arithmetic) or logarithmic way, and both of these options are available on most charting services.

If a price scale is constructed using a linear scale, the space between each price point (10, 20, 30, 40) is separated by an equal amount. A price move from 10 to 20 on a linear scale is the same distance on the chart as a move from 40 to 50. In other words, the price scale measures moves in absolute terms and does not show the effects of percent change.


Figure 2

If a price scale is in logarithmic terms, then the distance between points will be equal in terms of percent change. A price change from 10 to 20 is a 100% increase in the price while a move from 40 to 50 is only a 25% change, even though they are represented by the same distance on a linear scale. On a logarithmic scale, the distance of the 100% price change from 10 to 20 will not be the same as the 25% change from 40 to 50. In this case, the move from 10 to 20 is represented by a larger space one the chart, while the move from 40 to 50, is represented by a smaller space because, percentage-wise, it indicates a smaller move. In Figure 2, the logarithmic price scale on the right leaves the same amount of space between 10 and 20 as it does between 20 and 40 because these both represent 100% increases.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/university/technical/techanalysis6.asp#ixzz1Ve7GnUJ1

Technical Analysis: The Importance Of Volume

By Cory JanssenChad Langager and Casey Murphy

To this point, we've only discussed the price of a security. While price is the primary item of concern in technical analysis, volume is also extremely important. 
What is Volume? Volume is simply the number of shares or contracts that trade over a given period of time, usually a day. The higher the volume, the more active the security. To determine the movement of the volume (up or down), chartists look at the volume bars that can usually be found at the bottom of any chart. Volume bars illustrate how many shares have traded per period and show trends in the same way that prices do. (For further reading, see Price Patterns - Part 3Gauging Support And Resistance With Price By Volume.)  




Why Volume is Important
 
Volume is an important aspect of technical analysis because it is used to confirm trends and chart patterns. Any price movement up or down with relatively high volume is seen as a stronger, more relevant move than a similar move with weak volume. Therefore, if you are looking at a large price movement, you should also examine the volume to see whether it tells the same story. 
Say, for example, that a stock jumps 5% in one trading day after being in a long downtrend. Is this a sign of a trend reversal? This is where volume helps traders. If volume is high during the day relative to the average daily volume, it is a sign that the reversal is probably for real. On the other hand, if the volume is below average, there may not be enough conviction to support a true trend reversal. (To read more, check out Trading Volume - Crowd Psychology.) 

Volume should move with the trend. If prices are moving in an upward trend, volume should increase (and vice versa). If the previous relationship between volume and price movements starts to deteriorate, it is usually a sign of weakness in the trend. For example, if the stock is in an uptrend but the up trading days are marked with lower volume, it is a sign that the trend is starting to lose its legs and may soon end. 



When volume tells a different story, it is a case of divergence, which refers to a contradiction between two different indicators. The simplest example of divergence is a clear upward trend on declining volume. (For additional insight, read Divergences, Momentum And Rate Of Change.) 

Volume and Chart Patterns 
The other use of volume is to confirm chart patterns. Patterns such as head and shoulderstrianglesflags and other price patterns can be confirmed with volume, a process which we'll describe in more detail later in this tutorial. In most chart patterns, there are several pivotal points that are vital to what the chart is able to convey to chartists. Basically, if the volume is not there to confirm the pivotal moments of a chart pattern, the quality of the signal formed by the pattern is weakened

Volume Precedes Price 
Another important idea in technical analysis is that price is preceded by volume. Volume is closely monitored by technicians and chartists to form ideas on upcoming trend reversals. If volume is starting to decrease in an uptrend, it is usually a sign that the upward run is about to end. 

Now that we have a better understanding of some of the important factors of technical analysis, we can move on to charts, which help to identify trading opportunities in prices movements. 


Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/university/technical/techanalysis5.asp#ixzz1Ve1IhLwY

Technical Analysis: Support And Resistance

 By Cory JanssenChad Langager and Casey Murphy

Once you understand the concept of a trend, the next major concept is that of support and resistance. You'll often hear technical analysts talk about the ongoing battle between the bulls and the bears, or the struggle between buyers (demand) and sellers (supply). This is revealed by the prices a security seldom moves above (resistance) or below (support).


Figure 1

As you can see in Figure 1, support is the price level through which a stock or market seldom falls (illustrated by the blue arrows). Resistance, on the other hand, is the price level that a stock or market seldom surpasses (illustrated by the red arrows). 

Why Does it Happen?
These support and resistance levels are seen as important in terms of market psychology and supply and demand. Support and resistance levels are the levels at which a lot of traders are willing to buy the stock (in the case of a support) or sell it (in the case of resistance). When these trendlines are broken, the supply and demand and the psychology behind the stock's movements is thought to have shifted, in which case new levels of support and resistance will likely be established. 

Round Numbers and Support and Resistance
One type of universal support and resistance that tends to be seen across a large number of securities is round numbers. Round numbers like 10, 20, 35, 50, 100 and 1,000 tend be important in support and resistance levels because they often represent the major psychological turning points at which many traders will make buy or sell decisions. 

Buyers will often purchase large amounts of stock once the price starts to fall toward a major round number such as $50, which makes it more difficult for shares to fall below the level. On the other hand, sellers start to sell off a stock as it moves toward a round number peak, making it difficult to move past this upper level as well. It is the increased buying and selling pressure at these levels that makes them important points of support and resistance and, in many cases, major psychological points as well. 

Role Reversal Once a resistance or support level is broken, its role is reversed. If the price falls below a support level, that level will become resistance. If the price rises above a resistance level, it will often become support. As the price moves past a level of support or resistance, it is thought that supply and demand has shifted, causing the breached level to reverse its role. For a true reversal to occur, however, it is important that the price make a strong move through either the support or resistance. (For further reading, see Retracement Or Reversal: Know The Difference.)

Figure 2

For example, as you can see in Figure 2, the dotted line is shown as a level of resistance that has prevented the price from heading higher on two previous occasions (Points 1 and 2). However, once the resistance is broken, it becomes a level of support (shown by Points 3 and 4) by propping up the price and preventing it from heading lower again. 

Many traders who begin using technical analysis find this concept hard to believe and don't realize that this phenomenon occurs rather frequently, even with some of the most well-known companies.
For example, as you can see in Figure 3, this phenomenon is evident on the Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) chart between 2003 and 2006. Notice how the role of the $51 level changes from a strong level of support to a level of resistance.

Figure 3

In almost every case, a stock will have both a level of support and a level of resistance and will trade in this range as it bounces between these levels. This is most often seen when a stock is trading in a generally sideways manner as the price moves through successive peaks and troughs, testing resistance and support.



The Importance of Support and Resistance 
Support and resistance analysis is an important part of trends because it can be used to make trading decisions and identify when a trend is reversing. For example, if a trader identifies an important level of resistance that has been tested several times but never broken, he or she may decide to take profits as the security moves toward this point because it is unlikely that it will move past this level. 
Support and resistance levels both test and confirm trends and need to be monitored by anyone who uses technical analysis. As long as the price of the share remains between these levels of support and resistance, the trend is likely to continue. It is important to note, however, that a break beyond a level of support or resistance does not always have to be a reversal. For example, if prices moved above the resistance levels of an upward trending channel, the trend has accelerated, not reversed. This means that the price appreciation is expected to be faster than it was in the channel. 

Being aware of these important support and resistance points should affect the way that you trade a stock. Traders should avoid placing orders at these major points, as the area around them is usually marked by a lot of volatility. If you feel confident about making a trade near a support or resistance level, it is important that you follow this simple rule: do not place orders directly at the support or resistance level. This is because in many cases, the price never actually reaches the whole number, but flirts with it instead. So if you're bullish on a stock that is moving toward an important support level, do not place the trade at the support level. Instead, place it above the support level, but within a few points. On the other hand, if you are placing stops or short selling, set up your trade price at or below the level of support. 

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/university/technical/techanalysis4.asp#ixzz1VdwWoBQm

Shield your portfolio from stock market falls


As turmoil in the markets continues, which assets should investors buy to avoid losses – or even make money?

Shield with graphs of stock market falls - Shield your portfolio from stock market falls
How markets have fallen recently after a period of relative stability 


Stock market crashes can be terrifying for investors – even when, as happened last week, they are followed by dramatic recoveries.
What can we do to make our portfolios less susceptible to these disasters? After all, we now have access to a huge range of assets that were previously hard for private investors to buy – gold and government bonds, for example, which you can own easily via exchange-traded funds.
With these options available, there's no longer any need to put all your money in a UK equity unit trust and simply hope for the best. Private investors can now build portfolios as diversified as those put together by the biggest fund managers. But what exactly should they buy? We asked some of the City's best asset allocators where they were putting their money to ride out the storm and even make money amid the turmoil.
Sebastian Lyon runs Troy Asset Management's multi-asset Trojan fund, and has built a reputation for being a defensive manager, able to protect investors' money in the most difficult trading conditions. He said: "Delegate to someone with experience of moving in and out of asset classes. If you're in a fund that is fully invested in shares all the time, you are going to go up and down with the market."
In line with this philosophy, Mr Lyon's fund, which aims for capital preservation and long-term growth, currently has just 35pc of the fund in equities. This is down from 75pc following the market crash in the wake of the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008.
"If the correction continues, high-quality firms with good dividend records and low debt will come down with the rest." He mentioned Unilever, GlaxoSmithKline, British American Tobacco, Nestlé and Sage, the software company, as examples that should be on investors' buy lists if prices fell.
Thirty per cent of the fund is in index-linked bonds issued by the British and US governments. This is because Mr Lyon believes the threat of inflation will continue to be a problem. "We think policy in Britain and America is very inflationary," he said, "and can see the danger with inflation at 5pc and interest rates at zero."
He added: "Conventional bonds don't insure you against this. So non-index-linked government bonds are very dangerous assets. However, index-linked ones do cover you to some extent." However, he said he hadn't bought index-linked bonds for three to four months because they had been "overbought" in the "flight to quality". But for retail investors NS&I index-linked certificates are a sensible alternative.
Mr Lyon has 20pc of the fund in gold and gold shares, saying that he "can't see gold going down very far".
"The environment is right for gold at the moment. We are long-term investors, buying on weakness rather than selling on strength." But he said he was avoiding miners, banks and cyclical sectors such as industrials, as well as property and corporate bonds.
Lord Rothschild, the chairman of RIT Capital Partners, the investment trust, said he had anticipated this kind of market turmoil and had already positioned the fund to withstand it.
"In June last year I said we had more to worry about than at any other time in my 50 years of working in the City," he said. In his recent annual chairman's statement he wrote: "The risks ahead are glaring and global." This week he reiterated that these risks remained. "Few people listened at the time – now they are," he said.
To reduce the trust's exposure to risk, he put about 10pc in gold, avoided being fully invested in equities but increased exposure to big, US-listed global stocks. "We'll stick with that," he said. "We are concerned about inflation over the longer term. We don't own any bonds."
David Stewart, the chief investment officer of the Butterfield Group, described the current market crash as a "nightmare". He said the bank was holding 50pc of a typical client's funds in equities, 40pc in fixed interest and 10pc in cash.
"We believe in winning by not losing – making sure we avoid those asset classes we think are going to fall," Mr Stewart said.
Among shares, he favoured "megacap blue chips" quoted in Europe or the US. "We like emerging markets as a growth area but would rather access them via Western companies.
"Which would you rather own for the next 20 years: bonds issued by indebted Western countries or Unilever, Nestlé, Proctor & Gamble and the like?" he asked, adding that he also favoured the big pharmaceutical firms and General Electric.
Some of his clients' money is also in equity income funds, such as Veritas Global Equity Income and Schroder Global Equity Income.
"We look for growing yields and well covered dividends. Income has become a more important part of the total return. By holding on to equities we are also not throwing away the chance of participating in the recovery when growth returns," he said.
Mr Stewart was not worried about inflation, for now at least. "At some point, inflation will be a problem – if not, all attempts to jump-start economies will have failed. But that's not where we are now; we are in the middle of the credit crisis of 2008-2015."
Fidelity's Richard Skelt, the co-head of investment solutions at the fund manager, said investors faced a difficult task in trying to build a portfolio that could cope with the market response to either inflation or low growth – it was still unclear which outcome the economy faced.
"There are two ways to deal with this uncertainty," he said. "Either you own an incredibly broad spread of assets to cope, or you take a view." The danger with the latter route is that if this view is wrong, your portfolio could be hammered.
He suggested balancing your portfolio between growth assets and those that do well in low inflation, while pointing out that liquidity was also really important. "Illiquid strategies became badly unstuck in 2008, so have a lot of assets that can give you the liquidity you need," he said.
Mr Skelt called the wisdom of owning government bonds yielding 3pc "highly questionable" but said investors had to be "really careful" when buying index-linked bonds. "They are among the asset classes that have most disappointed people. There are some technical factors at work so buy carefully.
"Over the long term we like emerging markets. Buying a broadly based emerging market fund probably makes sense, although it's likely to be volatile."
The Ruffer Investment Trust, which has an enviable record of capital preservation, held almost 30pc of its assets in index-linked bonds at the end of last month, with 25pc in Japanese equities. It held 16pc in British shares and 8pc in US equities, with smaller allocations elsewhere. It also owned 6pc in gold and 4pc in cash.


Friday, 19 August 2011

Systematic and non-systematic risk


Applying lessons of high risk industries to healthcare




Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:i7-i12 doi:10.1136/qhc.12.suppl_1.i7
  • Article

Applying the lessons of high risk industries to health care

  1. P Hudson
+Author Affiliations
  1. Centre for Safety Research, Department of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to:
 P Hudson
 Centre for Safety Research, Department of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands, PO Box 9555, 2300 RB Leiden, Netherlands;Hudson@fsw.leidenuniv.nl

    Abstract

    High risk industries such as commercial aviation and the oil and gas industry have achieved exemplary safety performance. This paper reviews how they have managed to do that. The primary reasons are the positive attitudes towards safety and the operation of effective formal safety management systems. The safety culture provides an important explanation of why such organisations perform well. An evolutionary model of safety culture is provided in which there is a range of cultures from the pathological through the reactive to the calculative. Later, the proactive culture can evolve towards the generative organisation, an alternative description of the high reliability organisation. The current status of health care is reviewed, arguing that it has a much higher level of accidents and has a reactive culture, lagging behind both high risk industries studied in both attitude and systematic management of patient risks

    http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/12/suppl_1/i7.abstract

    Basic needs and Lifestyle choices



    Ronald Inglehart of the World Values Survey verbalized the above graph by stating that after meeting basic needs, lifestyle choices make up the majority of the difference in the GNP spectrum, and lower energy lifestyles do just about as well as high energy lifestyles (indeed, the USA uses 38 times the primary energy of the Phillipines but gets equivalent rankings of 'very happy' - any of you that have lived or worked abroad will intuit this).



    Basic needs and Lifestyle choices


    Ronald Inglehart of the World Values Survey verbalized the above graph by stating that after meeting basic needs, lifestyle choices make up the majority of the difference in the GNP spectrum, and lower energy lifestyles do just about as well as high energy lifestyles (indeed, the USA uses 38 times the primary energy of the Phillipines but gets equivalent rankings of 'very happy' - any of you that have lived or worked abroad will intuit this).



    Risk versus Returns


    Risk taker


    Initiating, planning and executing.


    Danger and Opportunity


    Special report: The perils of Paulson

    Special report: The perils of Paulson
    Written by Reuters
    Thursday, 11 August 2011 06:52




    NEW YORK/BOSTON: The crown may be slipping fast from billionaire trader John Paulson's head.

    The hedge fund manager became an overnight sensation in 2007 by betting big and early on the collapse of the U.S. housing market, and then doing much of the same on a surge in gold prices, Reuters reported on Wednesday, Aug 10. But he is now emerging as one of this year's big losers in the $2 trillion hedge fund industry.

    His Paulson & Co. hedge fund firm, which managed $38 billion as recently as this past March, is down to about $35 billion as of the first week of August, and it shrinks a little bit more with every big drop in the U.S. stock market.

    One of Paulson's two main funds is now down more than 30 percent this year, the firm has reported to clients, compared to a much smaller 6.1 percent decline for the average hedge fund, according to Hedge Fund Research.

    The problem for the 55-year-old manager: His equally daring bet that the U.S. economy and housing market would rebound strongly from the financial crisis -- a big wager that looked prescient a year ago -- isn't panning out as planned.

    Paulson's funds have amassed huge, mutual fund-style stakes in shares of financial institutions like Bank of America, Citigroup, Hartford Financial, Popular Inc. and American Capital. But these are ringing up hefty losses.

    And with fears of a double-dip recession in the United States mounting, coupled with this month's 13 percent plunge in the S&P 500, the talk is growing on Wall Street that unless Paulson can quickly turn things around, the hedge fund king could be hit with a wave of year-end investor redemptions.

    "There are many investors who have experienced great gains with John Paulson, but a lot of the money has come into his funds after those great gains were achieved, and the relative newcomers are seeing a lot of heavy losses," said Daryl Jones, director of research at Hedgeye Risk Management, which sells investment research to institutional investors. "I would imagine it would lessen their appetite to stay with someone who is supposed to be a big superstar but is down double digits right now."

    Paulson, through a firm spokesman, declined to comment. But people close to Paulson point out that other than hedge fund guru George Soros, no one has consistently made more money for clients than the man referred to by his friends and associates as "J.P."

    LOYALTY TEST

    This year, however, his investors' loyalty is being put to the test.

    Maybe no one single trade has come to symbolize Paulson's bullishness on the U.S. economy more than Bank of America. By August 9, the troubled lender's shares were down 43 percent this year, reducing the value of the 124 million shares Paulson owned as of March 31 by $784 million. Paulson is believed to have sold some of his Bank of America shares as the stock has plunged toward the $7 mark, but the firm has refused to comment on its current position. (link.reuters.com/gem23s)

    The picture isn't much prettier for Paulson's large share holdings in Citigroup, Popular (formerly Banco Popular) and SunTrust Banks. The value of Paulson's equity stake in those three banks, assuming the funds haven't sold any shares since March 31, would have declined by more than $800 million over the past four months.

    And then there is Sino-Forest, the troubled Chinese forestry company. Paulson absorbed a $500 million loss on the stock in June after allegations of accounting irregularities at the Hong Kong-based company surfaced earlier in the month. (link.reuters.com/hem23s)

    The series of missteps is tarnishing the near god-like status the former Bear Stearns trader has earned over the past few years.

    Much of the $20 billion in outside investor money Paulson manages has come from pension funds and clients who bought in after he made $15 billion for the firm in 2007 on his well-chronicled subprime mortgage trade. Paulson raised that money by making his hedge fund one of the most widely available to wealthy customers of dozens of large and small brokerage firms.

    Now some investors who got in after Paulson's so-called Alpha moment are getting out this fall, or are seriously considering doing so at year's end. Some in the industry are wondering whether Paulson's flagship Advantage funds, with $15 billion in assets, are too large and thus not nimble enough to navigate increasingly choppy markets for stocks.

    Francis Bielli, executive director of the Philadelphia Board of Pensions and Retirement, said on June 30 that the board voted to submit a redemption for its entire $12.4 million investment in the Paulson Advantage fund. The Philadelphia municipal pension, which manages $3.7 billion, had originally invested $15 million with Paulson in December 2008. In June 2010, it withdrew $4 million of that money.

    Joelle Mevi, of the Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico, invested with Paulson Advantage fund in March 2010. She is holding tight for the moment. But she says the $11.8 billion public pensions administrator is keeping a close eye on Paulson's performance and is concerned about his "exposure to financials."

    Paulson won't comment on investor redemptions, but he is trying to put his clients at ease. On August 5, the firm took the unusual step of sending out a letter to investors, informing them that for the period ending September 30, investors were seeking to withdraw $420 million from the firm. The letter says that's "less than the average quarterly redemptions over the past 2 years." But the firm was silent about potential year-end redemptions.

    PARTY CRASHES

    Hedge fund industry watchers say what's gone on at Paulson this year is indicative of what often happens with hot managers as they get big and take larger and larger bets.

    A study last year by research firm PerTrac Financial Solutions, which looked at the performance of thousands of hedge funds over a period of years, found that "investors who wish to maximize return should start their search by looking for younger funds." The report also found that except for 2008 - one of the worst years ever for the hedge fund industry - smaller funds have tended to outperform large hedge funds over the long haul.

    Patrick Adelsbach, a partner and director of event-driven research at hedge fund consulting firm Aksia, says whenever a hedge fund gets too large, there is a concern about a manager getting "boxed in" by taking outsized stock positions. He says the irony is that the more assets a manager has to deploy, the more ordinary the trades can become.

    When analyzing hedge funds for pension fund clients, Adelsbach says he keeps an eye out to make sure a manager isn't starting to emulate a "mutual fund strategy" in its stock trades.

    In some respects, Paulson's $15 billion Advantage funds have come to resemble a mutual fund - except that they charge the much larger fees of a hedge fund.

    As of March 31, Paulson was listed as one of the largest institutional shareholders in at least eight companies, including Hartford Financial, MGM Resorts International, Mylan Inc., SunTrust, Popular, XL Group and American Capital.

    In the case of MGM Resorts, Paulson's firm had 43.8 million shares as of March 31, nearly three times as many shares as four separate Vanguard funds had invested in the gambling and resort company.

    Alan Gold, a Chicago resident who invests in hedge funds and real estate, says he has shied away from Paulson, although he's been pitched a number of times. Gold says he tends to avoid large hedge funds because they can be "unwieldy" to manage, which makes it harder "to find good quality investments."

    Paulson's enormous 124-million-share bet on Bank of America is a classic example of a bold thematic play on a beaten-down stock.

    The move can look brilliant when the shares rise - which initially happened for Paulson when he first bought nearly 168 million shares of Bank of America in summer 2009. At the time the stock was selling for around $11 and briefly traded as high as $19 in April 2010. But when things go the other way and the stock is falling like a knife, it's hard to quickly get out of that position.

    In a July conference call with investors, Paulson conceded he had too much exposure to financial stocks and was reducing holdings in bank stocks with problematic mortgages such as Bank of America. But he has not offered any firm guidance on what his funds have been selling. (link.reuters.com/fem23s)

    The issue of size has been raised before. In a 2008 year-end investor letter, the manager wrote investors often "ask if our large asset base impedes our ability to maintain high levels of performance." He continued: "Although that may be the case in the future, we have not reached that point yet."

    GOLDEN DAYS

    Some of Paulson's most attractive investment opportunities are concentrated in some of the smallest funds he manages.

    His $1 billion Paulson Gold Fund, launched last year, is soaring ever higher, with the price of the precious metal reaching new heights every day. With gold now selling for around $1,792 an ounce, the Gold Fund, which had been up 2.7 percent through July could be up as much as 6 percent for the year, an investor said.

    The $3 billion Paulson Recovery Fund, which is flat for the year, is booking a whopping 200 percent paper gain on its $150 million investment in OneWest, a California-based bank that emerged from the wreckage of failed savings-and-loan IndyMac. The bank, which Paulson and other deep-pocketed investors bought with help from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., is potentially eyeing an initial public offering next year.

    Also up is the Paulson Real Estate Recovery Fund. The small, $350 million private-equity-style fund is buying vacant land with approval rights to build hundreds of single-family homes. It targets failed complexes in Colorado, Arizona, Florida and California. The fund gained 22 percent last year.

    Paulson believes that in five years time, the housing market will have recovered enough to enable the small fund to make a bundle from reselling the properties, which it acquired at bargain basement prices. In the meantime, Paulson is earning income as a landlord by renting out some of the luxury homes that were previously built before the developers went bust.

    But the majority of Paulson investors aren't in any of these funds, and have their money in the beleaguered Advantage funds.

    Paulson, who Forbes says has an estimated net worth of $16 billion, has pointed out that he and his employees are co-investors along with his customers. So the manager and his employees are sharing in some of the suffering his clients are enduring.

    It's true that about 40 percent of the firm's $35 billion in assets is either Paulson's money or that of his employees. But the firm does not require its employees to pay the typical 1.5 percent asset management fee and the 20 percent performance fee the fund collects from outside investors.

    Also, a good deal of the money invested by Paulson and his employees in the Advantage funds is committed to a so-called gold-denominated share class, which is performing far better than the plain vanilla version of the funds. But many of the Wall Street brokerage houses that sell access to Paulson funds don't offer the gold-denominated alternative, which Paulson introduced in 2009. About a third of the $35 billion Paulson manages is committed to the gold-share class.

    For many investors, the inability to access smaller funds or the gold-share class of the Advantage funds didn't matter when Paulson was posting high double-digit returns. But with the Advantage funds losing ground, more on Wall Street are starting to wonder about why Paulson moved so actively to rake in outside money the past few years.

    Paulson was largely an unknown figure before the subprime bet paid off. He toiled in relative obscurity and managed just several billion dollars for wealthy investors and small endowments from his mid-town Manhattan office. Until recently, he took the bus to work, say investors who know him.

    But the subprime bet, chronicled in the book "The Greatest Trade Ever" by Wall Street Journal reporter Gregory Zuckerman, catapulted him to rock star status and made many millionaires want to invest with him.

    COME ON IN

    Paulson did much to open the doors. He made his funds - in most cases just the Advantage funds - available to wealthy customers of Wall Street brokerages and small investment advisory firms.

    These distribution channels, or "platforms" in hedge-fund jargon, are a cheaper way for wealthy individual investors to access Paulson. The manager normally has a $10 million investment requirement. But for as little as $100,000, an investor with several million dollars in assets can put money into a Paulson fund through these brokerage firms.

    An increasing number of hedge funds, like D.E. Shaw & Co., Israel Englander's Millennium Management and Daniel Loeb's Third Point, are available to wealthy clients of UBS, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America's Merrill Lynch. But few funds are on as many of these platforms as Paulson.

    In the United States, wealthy individuals can also turn to smaller firms like Mount Yale Capital Group, Luminous Capital, Krusen Capital, Altegris Investments and CAIS Capital. In Europe, Paulson funds are sold through Lyxor and Deutsche Bank. In Australia and New Zealand, a small firm called Ashton Funds sells access to Paulson.

    To tap into these large brokerage and smaller investment advisory firms, a few years ago Paulson hired Claudio Macchetto from Citigroup's alternative investments group to serve as director of global platform operations. Macchetto, who reports to Paulson investor relations head James Wong, heads his own team of a half dozen employees.

    Overall, nearly two-dozen of Paulson's 120 employees are involved in either investor relations or marketing. That's considerably more than other leading funds.

    Dan Loeb's Third Point, with about $8 billion under management, has just four people in investor relations and marketing. Steven Cohen's SAC Capital Advisors, with $14 billion under management and more than 800 employees, has about a dozen people in marketing and investor relations.

    Och Ziff, founded by Dan Och in 1994, the same year Paulson went out on his own, has about 20 investor relations and marketing people, out of more than 420 employees.

    Paulson's large marketing team has enabled the firm to maintain a consistent flow of new investor money coming into the firm, even as it regularly sees several hundred million dollars in redemption each quarter, according to the August 5 memo from Wong, Paulson's investor-relations director. Paulson loyalists point out the fund's assets have largely held stable the last few years and more of its growth has come from performance than taking in net new money.

    For a large fund, amassing money to manage - what's called "asset gathering" in the industry - can be lucrative in and of itself.

    Using a back of the envelope calculation, Paulson is taking in about $300 million a year in asset management fees from his outside investors.

    "I completely understand why Paulson would want to build out exposure to independent firm platforms like ours, because it allows funds to access a different advisor and client base," says David King, a partner with U.S. Capital Advisors in Dallas, a firm that manages $1.5 billion and offers customers an opportunity to invest in the Advantage funds through an arrangement it has with CAIS Capital.

    "But I am puzzled why the Paulson funds are offered on so many of the large bank and wirehouse platforms," says King.

    Earlier this year, Paulson showed up at an event sponsored by UBS, which began selling Paulson's Advantage fund to its high-net worth customers last year. At that meeting, Paulson talked about why he was so bullish on shares of casino company MGM Resorts. In March, Paulson reported owning 43.8 million shares. But the stock has been a bust this year. MGM Resorts is down about 25 percent as of August 9.

    Not everyone sees all this marketing by Paulson as a bad thing. It may have helped him develop a loyal investor base. He's known for throwing lavish investor gatherings in Las Vegas and Paris. Such attention may be one reason redemptions for the third quarter are running relatively low, despite the poor performance of the Advantage funds.

    In fact, new money is still coming in. In the August 5 letter on redemptions, Wong hinted at that, saying: "redemptions may be offset by subscriptions."

    The $2.1 billion Houston Municipal Employees Pension System put $10 million into the Advantage fund in March. And a spokesman for the $18 billion Texas County & District Retirement System, which last year invested $40 million with Paulson, says the public pension has no plans to redeem.

    Dr. Lewis Feder, a Manhattan plastic surgeon with a list of celebrity patients, says he has no plans to bolt from Paulson, with whom he has invested for nearly a decade. Feder says he has money in six Paulson funds, including the small real estate recovery fund.

    "He has a remarkable team employed around him," said Feder. "He doesn't go out looking for money as much as it comes to him."

    A big test for investors, even Paulson's most loyal ones, comes in December, when the next opportunity to exit the fund comes up.

    http://www.theedgemalaysia.com/first/191071-special-report-the-perils-of-paulson.html