2009 Hedge Fund Compensation "disappointing"

I guess SteveF really is gone....

bulls?

sucks for the accountants, what's your point?

macro_m: I'm hardly a bull, but I will say that in my small segment of the Brooklyn real estate market, hedge fund employees make up zero percent of my clients. In fact, I have few clients who work in financial services at all. For the past year my buyers have been people, largely in creative fields, who have saved enough money for a substantial down payment and have base incomes sufficient to support a mortgage. But even during the bubble, my company and our properties tended not to attract financial sector employees, so we haven't felt a drop-off at all. I'm not saying the economic apocalypse hasn't meant a huge slow down in real estate, just that my company and our clients have benefitted from the buyers' market and the heightened banking restrictions.

Not representative, I know - just another perspective.

Tina
(Brooklyn broker)

Tina, I think thats a great selling point for brooklyn.

Juiceman...the point is that the bulls are expecting bonus season to save Manhattan RE...the money isnt gonna be there

JuiceMan: I think the concern would be that support staff at hedge funds and other financial firms were significant RE buyers during the run-up. From anecdotal observation, I'd say that's true, although the magnitude of their participation is very difficult to measure.

> sucks for the accountants

... and the portfolio managers... and the analysts...

> JuiceMan: I think the concern would be that support staff at hedge funds

Those aren't support staff, Juiceman just isn't being honest...

"macro_m: I'm hardly a bull, but I will say that in my small segment of the Brooklyn real estate market, hedge fund employees make up zero percent of my clients. In fact, I have few clients who work in financial services at all. For the past year my buyers have been people, largely in creative fields, who have saved enough money for a substantial down payment and have base incomes sufficient to support a mortgage. But even during the bubble, my company and our properties tended not to attract financial sector employees, so we haven't felt a drop-off at all."

Thats strange... because much the rest of the city was hit worse than the finance sector.

Publishing, probably the #2 industry, decimated. Apparel, likely #3, is so bad they made a documentary about it.

And creative types? Well, funding for the arts is in the toilet, too.

"Juiceman...the point is that the bulls are expecting bonus season to save Manhattan RE"

Really? I think what has been said is that improved bonuses will help the entire NYC economy, drive some jobs, and get things moving in the right direction. I could care less about the 28 yr old banker buying $3M apartments, what's important is an injection of cash into the local economy. What's funny is that the current administration will bitch about it publicly but are actually quite happy about bonuses fueling tax revenue and improved spending.

"Those aren't support staff, Juiceman just isn't being honest..."

EddieWilson adds nothing to this board except repetitive, slanted bull that fits his silly agenda. He is far from honest under any alias.

West81st, good to see you back.

Hmmm.. Juiceman gets caught in a lie and his response is to... call people names.

classy.

Hi, JuiceMan. Happy New Year.

In this case, I think somewhereelse has a valid point (insert reference to blind squirrel or stopped clock if you will). A lot of the financial folks who cashed big checks over the past five years were pretty far removed from the profit engines of their firms. If only the real rainmakers get paid, that's going to mean fewer potential buyers at current prices.

> insert reference to blind squirrel or stopped clock if you will

Though I don't know if Juice has been right twice.... this decade.
:-)

"Hmmm.. Juiceman gets caught in a lie and his response is to... call people names."

Typical EddieWilson misdirection, calls people a liar to cover his own idiocy. Ask him to actually point out where I "lied" and he will disappear from the thread and probably post under a new alias.

"I think somewhereelse has a valid point (insert reference to blind squirrel or stopped clock if you will)."

The problem West81st is that you are making the valid point for nyc10022. His only point for the last two years is that Manhattan is turning into the "I am Legend" set. You can take all of his posts for the last 24 months and summarize them into an amateur NY Post web clip. He couldn't find a point on a pencil and his next alias is OneTrickPony

West81st, that's more than a fair point. I do think a lot of people subconsciously substitute "all finance people" whenever they read "hedge funds" (among other terms) - not saying you're doing this, of course, but worth noting. It gets very easy to generalize from these articles, and as such very tricky to get much of a grasp on what's really going to happen (predicting the future is hard with scattershot information- who knew?). It'll be interesting to watch from the sidelines, at least. Very apt point about the blind squirrel, however!

"Typical EddieWilson misdirection, calls people a liar to cover his own idiocy. Ask him to actually point out where I "lied" and he will disappear from the thread and probably post under a new alias."

The incessant and false "you lie!" accusations have me wondering if he's a certain congressman from South Carolina.

"His only point for the last two years is that Manhattan is turning into the "I am Legend" set."
Yet another lie from Juice. Well done!

I've pretty much said the opposite over and over again. But, hey, whatever pulls attention away for your awful predictions since proven wrong....

"You can take all of his posts for the last 24 months and summarize them into an amateur NY Post web clip"

What would that make you? The enquirer?

;-)

"In this case, I think somewhereelse has a valid point (insert reference to blind squirrel or stopped clock if you will). A lot of the financial folks who cashed big checks over the past five years were pretty far removed from the profit engines of their firms. If only the real rainmakers get paid, that's going to mean fewer potential buyers at current prices."

Yeah, I don't really think Steven Cohen was the one bidding against you on the 2 bedroom co-op.

;-)

Many hedge funds are up this year, but not enough to pass high water marks. Expect that to happen next year, with performance fees then being paid and big bonuses to follow.

FYI, to clarify- hedge funds were up in 2009, but will pass high water marks in 2010.

And that's based on what, your prediction for the stock market?

and thats because funds are guaranteed to be up this year? guess what..they have to be up at the end of 2010 in order to get paid...now the reality of wall st. money not coming to the rescue is starting to settle in.

The other reality is that you cannot replace the $$$ that was not paid in 2008 and 2009 to hedge fundies. Yet, the condos keep coming, and natural migration continues to happen. There is a mouse in the snake of supply, but two years of wealth creation is gone forever.

pig, not mouse.

> FYI, to clarify- hedge funds were up in 2009, but will pass high water marks in 2010.

Meaning that the lion's share of what pays their bonuses in 2009 is nonexistent, and it is still nonexistent starting 2010, and it might come back this year if the market increases 20% again...

so best case scenario, they get, what, half a year? a third of a year? of what might be ok fees?

"The other reality is that you cannot replace the $$$ that was not paid in 2008 and 2009 to hedge fundies."

well, that too....

If the market increases 20% in 2010, it would not mean 1/2 a year or 1/3rd of a year, it would mean one very whole and very nice year. As would have been the 20% on average they made 2009, if it did not serve only as a clawback of the 2008 losses. You can also assume fund will not keep pace with the market, as they did not on the way down in 2008 and did not on the way up in 2009.

This said, you can get paid a lot on a 10% year.

"If the market increases 20% in 2010, it would not mean 1/2 a year or 1/3rd of a year, it would mean one very whole and very nice year."

depends on how far under the line you were. If you lost 40%, and then gained 20% and 20%, you only get a few points of profit to take your 2% on.

Of course, we're still basing this on a 20% increase...

Right but we're talking about the industry...which on average made back their 2008 loss in 2009. Therefore, if they made 20% in 2010, that would be one whole very good year, not a fraction of one.

> which on average made back their 2008 loss in 2009.

Your logic is sound, but the stats I saw showed that they didn't make back their losses yet...

What did you see as the average loss of 2008? I saw around 20%. The trickier issue here is 20% is an average. If you have some big positive outliers, you actually do have fewer funds that actually made their mark in 2009. Who knows. To me the bigger issue is you have two years with low wealth accumulation. Wealth accumulation is what drives demand.