10.9m a day.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article7085137.ece

David Tepper, the founder of Appaloosa Management, earned $4 billion last year, smashing records for the biggest pay packet received by a hedge fund manager.

Mr Tepper earned the sum after buying bank shares early last year when most other investors were dumping financial stock. The shares subsequently rose sharply, helping his main fund to grow by 130 per cent after fees. Appaloosa manages about $13 billion.

Mr Tepper’s earnings beat the $3.7 billion that John Paulson made in 2007 after betting that the US housing market would collapse.

What in the name of jesus.. This country had a hissy fit over 2 billion cuts and this lad made 4 billion. :eek:

Doyler92

Holy sh*t.

Altho I just read he's a philanthropist so it's not all bad...

RoadKillTs

Fair play. Growing a fund 130% in 08/09 is quite impressive.

ScumLord

Yup, the banking system just isn't working properly when it's dumping billions needlessly in one place and crying out for more billions in critical areas.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

Yup, the banking system just isn't working properly when it's dumping billions needlessly in one place and crying out for more billions in critical areas.

Well to be fair, his own investors are paying him 4 billion in performance fees.

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

Well to be fair, his own investors are paying him 4 billion in performance fees.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with what they're doing I'm just saying it's another sign of how poor a system it is to be relying on when it's doing things like that when we're in crisis.

Ciaran500

$32,000 a minute if he's working 5days a week, 8 hrs a day

ejmaztec

He could buy this country, we've got loads of hedges. It must be time to put it on Ebay again.

My name is URL

RoadKillTs wrote: »

Fair play. Growing a fund 130% in 08/09 is quite impressive.

I don't know if I'd say fair play to him tbh. Hedge Funds can be damaging to economies because the speculators often purposely instill doubt in markets. If you think transparency and regulation are bad within the commercial banking sector.. these guys are infinitely worse

My name is URL

My name is URL wrote: »

I don't know if I'd say fair play to him tbh. Hedge Funds can be damaging to economies because the speculators often purposely instill doubt in markets. If you think transparency and regulation are bad within the commercial banking sector.. these guys are infinitely worse

In this particular case, he was buying banking shares at rock bottom... If people like him didn't, what would have happened.

In this particular case.

Schism

Fair play to him is all I can say, took a risk and it paid off.

My name is URL

Deleted User wrote: »

In this particular case, he was buying banking shares at rock bottom... If people like him didn't, what would have happened.

In this particular case.

I have no idea what would have happened.. no idea what will happen when small groups of people buy out entire markets and sometimes even economies, either. I'm guessing that neither scenario would be particularly sound though. Sure maybe we'll be better of when elected governments get less and less control over our fiscal situations

ejmaztec

There's a lot of money to be made in having a hand in raping the economies of the world.

karma_

fair play?

There isn't a job in the world that could possibly justify a yearly salary of 4 Billion quid.

It's obscene in fairness.

bonerm

When a big winner get revealed I always wonder how many impoverished people are created to make one of him.

mikom

Deleted User wrote: »

David Tepper, the founder of Appaloosa Management, earned $4 billion last year, smashing records for the biggest pay packet received by a hedge fund manager.

Should have kept it privet, to be honest.

Sonnenblumen

Deleted User wrote: »

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article7085137.ece




What in the name of jesus.. This country had a hissy fit over 2 billion cuts and this lad made 4 billion. :eek:

Had pints with David last night, I tell you, he's a great guy. Nothing special about his tips!

skelliser

Schism wrote: »

Fair play to him is all I can say, took a risk and it paid off.

What happens when it doesnt pay off, oh yeah we the tax payer foot the bill.

PeakOutput

karma_ wrote: »

fair play?

There isn't a job in the world that could possibly justify a yearly salary of 4 Billion quid.

It's obscene in fairness.

his pay directly relates to how well he performs, the better he does the more he gets paid as he takes a percentage of his customers profits

he made alot of people alot of money and he made himself alot in the process there is nothing obscene about that

there is something obscene about paying a ceo huge bonuses after they have destroyed their company but thats something entirely different

PeakOutput

skelliser wrote: »

What happens when it doesnt pay off, oh yeah we the tax payer foot the bill.

care to list any hedge funds that have been bailed out with tax payers money anywhere in the world?

My name is URL

PeakOutput wrote: »

care to list any hedge funds that have been bailed out with tax payers money anywhere in the world?

lol.. every bailout (including NAMA) is pretty much a hedge fund.. massively leveraged, buying distressed assets, taking equity stakes…

Ever hear of LTCM? That led to a massive bailout

stainluss

My name is URL wrote: »

I have no idea what would have happened.. no idea what will happen when small groups of people buy out entire markets and sometimes even economies, either. I'm guessing that neither scenario would be particularly sound though. Sure maybe we'll be better of when elected governments get less and less control over our fiscal situations

Make Ireland capitalist? I like it:)

PeakOutput

My name is URL wrote: »

lol.. every bailout (including NAMA) is pretty much a hedge fund.. massively leveraged, buying distressed assets, taking equity stakes…

Ever hear of LTCM? That led to a massive bailout

a hedge fund fails because they make the wrong bets right?

say betting on a bank that goes bust

the hedge fund dosnt get bailed out

the bank might but the hedge fund dosnt

at least that is my understanding of it and that was my point

Fremen

It depends who the hedge fund owes what to. They bailed out LTCM because they owed money everywhere, and big institutions were depending on that money. The idea is that a fund can be "too interconnected to fail". If failure of an institution poses a big enough threat to the economy or the financial system, it will get bailed out, for sure.

On another note: four billion?! Let's take a step back and think about that. That's a salary equivalent to that of twenty thousand heart surgeons. He got that money by making a correct guess about the direction that the market would move.

But could he repeat that success or was it luck? A guy who could double someone's money on the market every year might deserve pay like that, but a guy who gets lucky gambling with someone else's pension doesn't.

skelliser

PeakOutput wrote: »

a hedge fund fails because they make the wrong bets right?

say betting on a bank that goes bust

the hedge fund dosnt get bailed out

the bank might but the hedge fund dosnt

at least that is my understanding of it and that was my point

Yes but what happens when it becomes "to big to fail", me and you pay. Just look at the last 10 years in this country.
All that money developers borrowed alot of it went into hedge funds and other investments, tell me whos paying for that borrowed money now?!

So not only have these thieves been bailed out, its possible some invested in this particular hedge fund and are now making a profit on our backs!

Everything is interconnected but if your on the inside you will be taken care of. See Anglo and NAMA.

ScumLord

Fremen wrote: »

On another note: four billion?! Let's take a step back and think about that. That's a salary equivalent to that of twenty thousand heart surgeons. He got that money by making a correct guess about the direction that the market would move.

But could he repeat that success or was it luck? A guy who could double someone's money on the market every year might deserve pay like that, but a guy who gets lucky gambling with someone else's pension doesn't.

I'm surprised one person made such a big gain and not lots of people making gains. Bank shares went down, if they didn't come back up that would mean banks failed and the global economy is in ruins making pretty much all investments null and void.

Every government on the planet was doing there best to ensure that didn't happen so the safe money was really with the banks coming back. It was safe money in the sense if you lose everybody loses and money is next to useless anyway, when you win you win big. He bet on the world economy with the human race behind it succeeding, odds are it's going to succeed if everyone is working for it to succeed.

Any economist or banker that bet against that happening was an absolute tool. They would basically be betting against their own profession.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article7085137.ece

David Tepper, the founder of Appaloosa Management, earned $4 billion last year, smashing records for the biggest pay packet received by a hedge fund manager.

Mr Tepper earned the sum after buying bank shares early last year when most other investors were dumping financial stock. The shares subsequently rose sharply, helping his main fund to grow by 130 per cent after fees. Appaloosa manages about $13 billion.

Mr Tepper’s earnings beat the $3.7 billion that John Paulson made in 2007 after betting that the US housing market would collapse.

What in the name of jesus.. This country had a hissy fit over 2 billion cuts and this lad made 4 billion. :eek:

He made $4Bn and he only manages $13Bn and the fund grew 130% ??

$10Bn grown by 130% makes $13Bn - so where did the $4Bn come from ??

even starting with $13Bn you only get to $16.9 Bn which means the $4Bn is more than the fund grew by.

What am I missing ?

kumate_champ07

My name is URL wrote: »

I don't know if I'd say fair play to him tbh. Hedge Funds can be damaging to economies because the speculators often purposely instill doubt in markets. If you think transparency and regulation are bad within the commercial banking sector.. these guys are infinitely worse

Gordon Gecko!

Tar.Aldarion

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

He made $4Bn and he only manages $13Bn and the fund grew 130% ??

$10Bn grown by 130% makes $13Bn - so where did the $4Bn come from ??

even starting with $13Bn you only get to $16.9 Bn which means the $4Bn is more than the fund grew by.

What am I missing ?

Are you not growing it by 30% instead of 130%

Capt'n Midnight

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Are you not growing it by 30% instead of 130%

Ah...

But anyway you look at it he is still getting a huge percentage of the gross profit, one supposes he is exposed to no risk unlike those that own the money.

I'm not sure why I started this thread but it does show some ignorance.. The bailout money was mainly massive loans to create liquidity. To say that this guy took any of that money is ridiculous.. Them banks have paid back the loans and he isn't affiliated with them. What he did was invest when the shares were worth nothing, made a massive profit and huge performance fees.

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not sure why I started this thread but it does show some ignorance.. The bailout money was mainly massive loans to create liquidity. To say that this guy took any of that money is ridiculous.. Them banks have paid back the loans and he isn't affiliated with them. What he did was invest when the shares were worth nothing, made a massive profit and huge performance fees.

That money still had to come from somewhere. The system is wrong when someone can sit on their arses clicking button while families work their hole off in an actual job get their taxes spent on bailing the banks out only so the banks can take money off those tax payers to pay out to the likes of David Tepper.

People will play the system to their advantage, that's what people do but the system is something we constructed and something we can change. We should not allow holes like this in a vital system like the economy, it's like giving a million gallons of water to one person during a drought.

starbelgrade

Ciaran500 wrote: »

$32,000 a minute if he's working 5days a week, 8 hrs a day

Hardly worth his while getting out of bed in the morning for that pittance.

Fremen

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm surprised one person made such a big gain and not lots of people making gains. Bank shares went down, if they didn't come back up that would mean banks failed and the global economy is in ruins making pretty much all investments null and void.

Every government on the planet was doing there best to ensure that didn't happen so the safe money was really with the banks coming back. It was safe money in the sense if you lose everybody loses and money is next to useless anyway, when you win you win big. He bet on the world economy with the human race behind it succeeding, odds are it's going to succeed if everyone is working for it to succeed.

Any economist or banker that bet against that happening was an absolute tool. They would basically be betting against their own profession.

Which raises the following question: why the fúck didn't the Irish government nationalise AIB and Bank of Ireland? We might have actually made some money out of the deal.

northwest100

ah sure, fair play tae the big fella, he worked hard and got an honest days pay.

orourkeda

Theres a smell of ponzi scheme off that

Gone Drinking

4 Billion and he's using a ****ty CRT monitor?

bonerm

Gone Drinking wrote: »

4 Billion and he's using a ****ty CRT monitor?

Apparently Bernie Madoff's "magic office" was full of CRT's also. Hmmm....

orourkeda

orourkeda wrote: »

Theres a smell of ponzi scheme off that

A ponzi scheme works best paying out a modest steady return to investors, not breaking records.
Had a look in work there at the statements and one of his funds is up 28% this year at the end of April. Another big year for him the lucky feker.

ScumLord

Gone Drinking wrote: »

4 Billion and he's using a ****ty CRT monitor?

As Bill Gates once said, "I didn't get rich by writing checks"

PeakOutput

ScumLord wrote: »

That money still had to come from somewhere. The system is wrong when someone can sit on their arses clicking button while families work their hole off in an actual job get their taxes spent on bailing the banks out only so the banks can take money off those tax payers to pay out to the likes of David Tepper.

People will play the system to their advantage, that's what people do but the system is something we constructed and something we can change. We should not allow holes like this in a vital system like the economy, it's like giving a million gallons of water to one person during a drought.

without investors there wud be no jobsvfor anyone

he took a risk that the banks wouldnt fail and as a result probably helped them not fail because when you make large investments like that it gives other people confidence

he took the right risk and deserves for it to pay off

lets say he didnt invest the large amounts of money in those banks and therefore there were no extra confidence in the banks so no1 bought there shares so they plummetted more and then there was a run on the banks and then they failed

what would happen then? thousnds if not hundreds of thousands of people would be out of the job

ScumLord

PeakOutput wrote: »

without investors there wud be no jobsvfor anyone

That's not strictly true and I'd consider an investor in a business something allot different from a faceless banker playing the stock market.

I don't see how this relates to jobs at all. Over all I think the banking system should fail, it has failed on more than one occasion and the people that profit from it keep using our money to prop it back up again.

PeakOutput

ScumLord wrote: »

That's not strictly true and I'd consider an investor in a business something allot different from a faceless banker playing the stock market.

the stock market is how you invest in shares and its what gives a company its value

without the stock market there is no incentive to invest in the companies originally

I don't see how this relates to jobs at all. Over all I think the banking system should fail, it has failed on more than one occasion and the people that profit from it keep using our money to prop it back up again.

maybe it should fail but that just means a rake of new banks will be set up and it relates to jobs because share price is an indicator of how good a company is if their share price is nothing then no1 is going to use the bank and if they have money in it they will take it out

then the bank will fail and people will lose their jobs

What people arn't getting here is that he isn't stealing this money from anyone.. No one is poorer because he got richer. The only people losing out are the people who dumped those shares at such a low price.. For every buy, there's a sell. That's something people always forget when they hear about a stock price falling..

PeakOutput can explain this much better than I can.

PeakOutput

PeakOutput wrote: »

without investors there wud be no jobsvfor anyone

Many jobs are required to maintain the basics of human life by providing essential services, like food, water etc. investments help those types of employment but provide poor returns.

The real money is being made gambling with other peoples savings!

PeakOutput

Deleted User wrote: »

The real money is being made gambling with other peoples savings!

this person didnt do that though

PeakOutput

Deleted User wrote: »

Many jobs are required to maintain the basics of human life by providing essential services, like food, water etc. investments help those types of employment but provide poor returns.

typically goverment provides these essential services(besides food obviously)

they do this to create a country and a society which is wuiet a good return on the investment if you ask me

that society then crates wealth

ScumLord

PeakOutput wrote: »

the stock market is how you invest in shares and its what gives a company its value

without the stock market there is no incentive to invest in the companies originally



maybe it should fail but that just means a rake of new banks will be set up and it relates to jobs because share price is an indicator of how good a company is if their share price is nothing then no1 is going to use the bank and if they have money in it they will take it out

then the bank will fail and people will lose their jobs

There are plenty of high quality and award winning companies that don't have shares or investors, in fact those companies are better for the lack of stock holders. They can invest as they see fit and make a quality product instead of a cheap branded product to milk the populace.

Deleted User wrote: »

What people arn't getting here is that he isn't stealing this money from anyone..

So where does that money come from? I'm not accusing him of stealing, like I already said he just played the system. How does the bank generate this money?

I just don't like the shareholder system, it's counter productive and allows the company to avoid responsibility because of a faceless group of people that the company can use as an excuse to do whatever they like to make their profits.

PeakOutput

ScumLord wrote: »

There are plenty of high quality and award winning companies that don't have shares or investors, in fact those companies are better for the lack of stock holders. They can invest as they see fit and make a quality product instead of a cheap branded product to milk the populace.

there are also alot of high quality award winning publicly traded companies

So where does that money come from? I'm not accusing him of stealing, like I already said he just played the system. How does the bank generate this money?

the money didnt come from the bank either

he bought the shares low and sold them high and then took a percentage, it had nothing to do with the banks funds at all

I just don't like the shareholder system, it's counter productive and allows the company to avoid responsibility because of a faceless group of people that the company can use as an excuse to do whatever they like to make their profits.

that is true alright similarly a corporation in america has all the legal rights of an individual but none of the responsibilty which is a massive problem BUT that dosntmean the entire system is flawed it just means that there needs to be correct regulation

PeakOutput

PeakOutput wrote: »

this person didnt do that though

The biggest investments are made with pension funds = peoples savings.