This does not sound right. Maybe venture capital funds work this way? (I wouldn't know about them.)
But with regular hedge funds, you are joining a portfolio and you do get the return even on the positions that were in place at the time you invested. The only differences between investors that may affect the return that is allocated to them are a) their share classes, which may affect investment terms such as fees or withdrawal rights, and b) their respective high watermarks, which may affect the payment of performance fees. Everything else within the same fund will be the same.
I think they usually say that they are focused on alpha while minimizing beta, i.e. don't compare us to the S&P or other indices because we are market neutral. And in my experience, the large, old firms that I am personally familiar with do in fact have beta very close to 0 in their main funds, so on that front at least some firms do deliver.
This doesn't necessarily make the product a good idea even for people who can get an allocation, however. For example, because most (all?) market-neutral firms engage in active trading, a US UHNW person living in a high-tax state will generally have to pay around 50% of each year's gains in taxes. These taxes will have to be paid whether or not they did or were even allowed to withdraw any money from their investments that year, so a gain of let's say 12% becomes 6%, which may have to come out from some other source.
> have to pay around 50% of each year's gains in taxes.
> ...will have to be paid whether or not they did or were even allowed to withdraw any money from their investments that year
That's crazy.
I would've thought the hedge fund would be able to hide the capital gains tax (as they're a trader, and should be exempted from capital gains taxes), so you as an investor only pays capital gains tax when you withdraw.
This also implies that the investor doesn't get to carry forward capital losses, or use it to offset their own outside capital gains.
I have been using a ".capital" email domain for work for the last few years, and the only issue I've encountered is form validation regexes that believe that the TLD portion must be between 2 and 5 characters long (literally "{2,5}" every time---must be copy-pasted from some regex recipe). I feel like it might be becoming less of a problem, but still something to keep in mind.
I use Office365 to host email, and have had no issues whatever with delivery.
I replaced the head unit on my car from the same era with an aftermarket Sony XAV-9000ES unit that has wireless carplay support. It takes about 10 seconds to connect after powering up the electronics but is otherwise seamless. Full steering wheel controls too (volume, next/prev track, pause/resume, mute). No car info, but the car is old enough to have a proper gauge cluster.
There are also dash-mounted "carplay screens" that are both much cheaper and much easier to install but lack integrations/require hacky solutions to get, say, audio out.
Wave (https://www.waveapps.com/) works well for me. Admittedly, I have not explored things like accrual accounting (I just do everything on a cash basis), so I don’t know how well this is supported, and I’m perplexed that there is no easy way to generate EBITDA reports from within Wave itself, but basic tracking of expenses and transfers across multiple vendors and accounts works smoothly.
[Edit] Also, most CPAs I have talked with know and can integrate with Wave.
[1] lists exceptions in section 8. Mostly, they are entities that are already subject to substantially more stringent reporting requirements such as banks, entities registered with the SEC, and so on:
> Many of these exempt entities are already regulated by federal and/or state government, and many already disclose their beneficial ownership information to a governmental authority.
The one exemption that I found unexpected was the following:
> (xxi) Large operating companies with more than 20 full-time employees, more than $5,000,000 in gross receipts or sales, and an operating presence at a physical office within the United States.
It's not clear to me why such entities need to be excluded from reporting. It's true that they are much less likely to be shell companies, but still...why? Also, get below $5M one year or let go of your 21st employee, and get ready for the left-field fine from FinCEN.
The exemption for "large operating companies" was adapted straight from the text of the 2019 Corporate Transparency Act [0] (at inserted subsection 5336(a)(11)(B)(xxi)) that this regulation is implementing; it's pretty much set in stone from FinCEN's perspective. The closest I could find to an initial rationale was in the statement given by Ron Wyden when he introduced a 2017 version of the bill to the Senate [1]:
> The bill is constructed to exempt many legitimate businesses, and the information requested is already provided by most companies in the normal course of business. Collecting beneficial ownership information at the time of incorporation relieves later compliance burdens for legitimate businesses, while at the same time prevents illegitimate businesses from operating in secrecy.
That is, the regulation should impact as few businesses as possible while still achieving its goals, so any company that fits into the mold of almost-certainly-not-a-secret-shell-company should be exempted if possible.
Regarding the "left-field fine", that's presumably why businesses have a 30-calendar-day period to report that they are no longer exempt. But obviously, that isn't going to help if the business is unaware of the reporting requirement. Perhaps the requirement on new businesses is expected to spread awareness before the requirement on existing businesses comes into effect.
To me, it's the 20 FTEs requirement that is the most unexpected. The small businesses that I or the people I know have worked at or have interacted with were generally in the 2-10 FTE range.
For what it's worth, I personally have nothing against the spirit of this regulation. Corporations and LLCs are legal structures provided by the government. The (federal) government not always knowing who the beneficial owners are is an implementation artifact. FinCEN should have access to this information; I just wish that they would talk to the states about it instead of threatening individual owners with penalties and jail for not reporting to them directly.
I suppose the theory is that if they exempted all businesses with paid employees and actual premises, someone might simply set up their shell company with an employee or two. 20 is probably too high a burden for all but the most dedicated crooks.
I am reminded of "accidental Americans" who discovered they owe FinCEN hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties for not reporting their foreign (i.e., local to them) bank accounts. Now, it's the forgotten-but-not-dissolved LLCs' turn to shine.
> Failure to meet the reporting requirements or unauthorized disclosure of BOI can result in civil or criminal actions. Willful failure to file a complete initial or updated report with FinCEN is subject to a US$500-per-day fine (up to US$10,000) and imprisonment for up to two years.
The FinCEN database is a massive heap of garbage. Anyone who has ever tried to submit knows this. The form is confusing as hell, so I assume everyone fills it out slightly differently. The website seems to crash with alarming regularity. I had to fill out the form 3 different times because of this.
So basically they have a massive database of horribly inaccurate data. From what I gather, the only people who would get in trouble for not submitting are the ones already on the IRS radar. The FinCEN database is used more to add on top of an investigation than initiate one.
I'd love to see someone prosecuted for failure to report as a single violation (i.e. no other tax or financial crimes involved). I assume the lawyers for the defense would have a field day sowing doubt in the judges mind as to whether or not someone truly failed to report (e.g. missing or corrupted data, IT errors, etc).
Each trade is bilateral. Futures, both regular and these "perpetual swaps" are zero-sum. A person buying is another person selling and vice versa. The exchange does not need to hedge the underlying because the exchange/clearing house is a neutral party in the transaction as long as the individual traders are solvent. What it is exposed to is traders blowing up and not being to cover their debts.
In case of regular futures, price discovery is aided by the fact that the futures eventually settle to either the underlying or its cash value at a specific point. In perpetual futures, price discovery is aided by "funding fees," which are periodic cash transfers from the side that is contributing to the price discrepancy between the future and the spot to the opposite side. E.g., if perp is below the spot, the short holders will periodically be charged the funding fee, which will go to the long holders, to encourage the shorts to buy/get the price closer to spot, etc.
Eons (>15 years) ago, I sold software that relied on having a working TeX installation, and to make it easier on my users, my installer provided a very very trimmed down version of MiKTeX as an optional download. The beautiful thing about MiKTeX is that its autoinstall feature meant that one could delete 90% of the packages, and the worst that would happen is that referencing something I deemed unessential would prompt a just-in-time download.
I recall I managed to cut MiKTeX down to about 12MB. Never heard a single complaint about it.
Latex is stuck in the past. Academic publishers even more so. It's 2022, and I can't use slightly non-standard letters (e.g. non-Latin characters) in my papers without jumping through hoops. It's anyone's guess as to which ones will work and which won't. The language was designed in the 80's and it shows, many commonly used packages are severely outdated and nobody cares.
Trading connections that go over private links such as cross-connects between the firm's and the exchange's equipment within a colocation facility are not encrypted.
But with regular hedge funds, you are joining a portfolio and you do get the return even on the positions that were in place at the time you invested. The only differences between investors that may affect the return that is allocated to them are a) their share classes, which may affect investment terms such as fees or withdrawal rights, and b) their respective high watermarks, which may affect the payment of performance fees. Everything else within the same fund will be the same.