They parked next to each other today: There's quite a bit of other eye candy in this parking lot as well. A few Astons, a Fisker, a 430 CS, a few Bentley CGTs, and Porsche's seemingly everywhere.
Wow, looks like I have to update my preferences. I haven't been in Brooklyn for 6 years. I currently live in Westchester, and that pic is from the parking lot of the hedge fund I work at in Connecticut. The parking lot next door (the main building) is considerably more impressive however with a couple of Astons, a Fisker, more than a handful of Bentley CGTs, Porsches everywhere including a track-prepped GT3 that gets daily driven, the 458 in the photo usually parks in that lot, a Maybach, and a Gallardo occasionally.
Although I'd probably pick Ferro, or Bianco Avus, Grigio Silverstone fits the FF so well in my opinion!
The Maybach is a chauffeur situation. Most of the Bentleys, Maseratis, and Astons appear to be a simple status thing as are almost all of the Porsches save the GT3 and a lowered 996 Turbo that appears to have been track-prepped and that runs tires in the summer I can't believe are actually street legal. On top of the two Ferraris in the photo, there is a 430 Scud (nero, no stripe) that I mentioned earlier and a California. That said, I think the California was traded in for the FF as I haven't seen it since the FF hit the lot. Except for the Maybach (CEO), I have no idea who owns the other cars as I've amazingly never actually been in the lot when the owners are getting in/out of their cars and I've worked here for 4 years now.
Take this scene, multiply it by 500 across the country at other hedge fund and mutual fund offices. Ah, so THAT'S what happened to my mutual fund contributions! :/
As Pete said, that is wicked funny! However, I do find it fitting that the "hearse" is bringing the styling remains to the feet, as it were, of the 458. My opinion being the 458 is the most sublime Ferrari design in 30 years and instantly in the top 10%.
Sorry to bring up an old thread, but I wanted to chime in here. Yes, there is one very big difference between a hedge fund and a mutual fund. Mutual funds gets paid out as a percentage of assets under management. They take X% off the top each year to cover costs, many also take an up-front load on all assets deposited. Meaning they take $5 out of every $100 you give to them. Ever see a Vanguard or T. Rowe Price ad on TV? They want your money. The more money they have, the more their managers get paid out. Vanguard has over $1.7 trillion under management (no typo there). Hedge funds don't typically charge an up-front load. The average hedge fund charges a 2% management fee (2% taken off the top yearly to cover the costs of personnel, computers, market-data, lights, rent, 401K, healthcare, etc) and a 25% performance fee which means for take $5 for every $20 their clients make. Their big money comes from making the clients money, not getting more of the clients assets. When you hear of a successful hedge fund closing it's doors to new investors - there are calculated reasons for that. There is only so much successful trading a handful of traders can accomplish without moving markets or otherwise screwing themselves. So most hedge funds, the good ones anyway, will limit their assets to only what they can successfully deploy. Any more than that would just sit unused in an account and artificially deflate returns.
true, but not really what I meant. What I was getting at is that the parking lot at the Vanguard, T.rowe, fidelity (insert xyz investment company) will likely look a bit different than that at Och Ziff, SAC, Citadel, or similar.