« Yet more Tory economic stupidity | Main | Good times & the nanny state »

December 16, 2008



What, every year?

Luis Enrique

pretty exhausting having one baby each year though.


You don't need a baby every year. 2 or 3 at the right time will suffice to establish a reputation. And once you have a reputation, groupthink, herding, the heuristic of social proof and the confirmation bias will alllow you to maintain it, even with only moderate performance.


Hence the old US investors' rhyme "sell in May and go away, Come back after Labor Day".


If she can guarantee the timings of her pregnancy to produce a baby in the summer then she is a superwoman.


She had a couple of good years in the bullmarket whilst at Morgan Grenfell/Deutsche Bank(Remember Peter Young). Colleagues did not rate her.Took the press with her to Frankfurt. She was a Hello girl before Hello first published. Wrote her own script. Wrote the book. Self publicist.

Madoff's rock steady returns over a decade or more and his refusal to explain his methodology screamed fraud. Why would you tens of millions (and in the case of the bank billions) without interviewing the principle fund manager. The funds were an convenient way of Madoff getting distance between him and the investor but likes of HSBC/Man/Santander/RBS should have demanded access to Madoff on site. Then perhaps they may have noted that he used a single partner account to do the books of the trading company where all the activities were undertaken.
Bramdean Alternative Investments appears to be selling at a big discount to last NAV taking into account a complete w/off of Madoff holding. I suspect Bramdean is dead woman walking and that in due course the company will be liquidated and proceeds returned to shareholders.


You don't have to be a woman to do this; men get paternity leave.


1. I'm surprised that more has not been made of the claims of fraud by Madoff that existed as far back as 1999 and why these were ignored.

2. A former colleague used to regularly trot out the fact that Isaac Newton lost money in the south sea bubble. Intelligence is no defence against a bubble or, in this case a fraud. And who am I, sat here with my RBS shares, to argue?


Isn't this a case of poor regulation being worse than no regulation?

A parallel is Local authorities investing in Icelandic banks: If you were in a local authority and charged with investing the ratepayers funds, consider your response to the following two government guidances:

1. You should spread your investments across many AAA rated deposit takers to avoid concentration risk, and try and get as high a yield as possible.

2. You should spread your investments across many deposit takers to avoid concentration risk, and try and get as high a yield as possible. You are responsible for assessing the risk of the institutions.

I think the chances of investing in Icelandic banks are much higher in 1 than in 2.



Frank H Little

Ok, we've had the cock-up theory, how about conspiracy? Early investors in Bernard Ganeff's vehicle began to realise that it was a Ponzi scheme. In order to protect their income stream, they gave him publicity to draw in more suckers, with the intention of withdrawing their original deposits in small tranches.

Not that I am suggesting that Nicola Horlick was one of these. And she does have an above-average family.


The link to Ms. Horlick's article in timesonline is no longer working. I guess the newspaper removed the article.


That sounds rather too close to "She's a female, so obviously she could only have got good results by cheating."


Yes, Jade; see Chris's epically wankerish "Against women" for further material. It's a case of "In Slow News Day, Blogger Resorts to Cheap Sensationalism".

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad