Hedge Funds: Julian Robertson Goes to Extreme Golf

Once you move on from the hedge fund business and you need something about which to get fired up, golf doesn’t always fill the bill — unless you go extreme, of course. With Tiger Management founder Julian Robertson having announced he is sponsoring a new $1-million first prize tourney in New Zealand next January, I was struck by some extreme comments about the course itself:

Cape Kidnappers, ranked 10th on Golf Digest magazine’s list of top courses outside the U.S., is located in Hawke’s Bay, on the southern part of New Zealand’s north island.

…Robertson said he expects a maximum of 5,000 spectators to attend. The Tom Doak-designed course, with holes that snake along 500-foot limestone cliffs, presents “certain hazards,” he said.

“We don’t really want an enormous amount of spectators,” Robertson said. “The only way to control the people is with ropes.”

Coincidentally enough, as I recall ropes were also the only way to control exiting Tiger Management fund investors back in 2000.

[via Bloomberg]

Related posts:

  1. Hedge Funds as VCs
  2. Uncorrelated Correlated Hedge Funds
  3. The Shorter Tom Wolfe on Hedge Funds
  4. Hedge Fund Assets vs. Mutual Funds Assets
  5. Private Equity? Over! Hedge Funds? Over!

Comments

  1. lancey says:

    i’ve been around a while. seen a lot of ex tiger people. laughed at tiger when i saw the positions. but seriously i dont get why people take shots at julian. taleb does too. why. i don’t see the justification– relative to everyone else

  2. Fair question. I think it’s largely gallows humor, with people unnerved that a) a smart hedge fund guy had the trouble that he did; and b) he shut down pretty much at the top of the Internet bubble.

  3. franklin stubbs says:

    It’s really kind of twisted to point out, but a fascinating factoid nonetheless: for all of Robertson’s success as a legendary hedge fund manager, he probably shows a net loss in markets on an absolute dollar basis.
    Why? Cause the bulk of his stellar performance years came when he was tiny… or at least relatively small in comparison to the final years…. and the killer drawdown came when he was running $20 billion or so.
    Doesn’t necessarily make him less of a legend. But still, a legend who actually LOST money for clients on an absolute dollar basis, while retaining his own massive wealth? Kinda twisted. Just sayin’ is all…

  4. nom says:

    Why is handing back LP money at the “top of the bubble” a bad thing? Granted, if he kept the money and invested when stocks crashed, it would have been a nice rebound. But as opposed to those who invested at the top of the bubble, I’d argue that he did the right thing by LPs.