We don't know what the strategies are so we are not in a position to evaluate the alpha. See the protasis of my statement, beginning with "if".
> We don't know what the strategies are so we are not in a position to evaluate the alpha.
Then neither are you, and this entire discussion becomes rather meaningless, wouldn't you say?
What we do have are public numbers that indicate, whatever the strategies may be, their returns exist independent of tax-advantaged leverage.
Yes we are. The fact that their returns have been consistent regardless of market regime is clear evidence of alpha regardless of leverage. We don't need to know what their strategies are to know that.
Re:Jim Simons: The Numbers King
by dna_polymerase on Tuesday December 12, 2017 @11:20AM
(#15906729)
Okay, as someone else already pointed out to you: How can you be so sure about your argument?
This said, please elaborate, how exactly could they turn a strategy losing them money around by pumping more money into that?
And in my previous comment to you, literally the one you replied to, I explained that this is not the case. Re-read my comment. Their strategies have alpha distinct from the leverage (because, again, leverage is not alpha), both historically before the tax maneuvering began, and since the conclusion of its use.