Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

ex-Citadel portfolio manager, just explained why almost every fund actually blows up. "90% of hedge fund failures, PM failures, analyst failures, it's bad portfolio construction, sizing, all those things." the logic: alpha is competitive. one good idea barely moves the needle, because the moment you build a book, correlation... starts eating you. "any amount of correlation in a portfolio drags your sharpe ratio toward the market's." and the market's sharpe you can buy for free from Vanguard. so the entire game collapses to two things: generate a positive hit rate across enough independent bets, and kill the correlation between them. the funds that survive run 80-90% of their risk in idiosyncratic, stock-specific bets. only 10-20% is allowed to be factor exposure. and they treat every factor bet, momentum, crowding, "long the AI trade", like a single stock position, with the same hard limits and the same diligence. the ones who blow up almost always had the ideas. they just leaked P&L on risk they never meant to take. "what they got wrong was risk and portfolio construction." clip from "Odds on Open"show more

Goshawk Trades

74,151 subscribers

39,360 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Ex-Citadel PM Rich Falk-Wallace (Rich Falk-Wallace) on why 90% of hedge fund blowups are portfolio construction — not bad ideas. Rich Falk-Wallace (PM @ Citadel | Viking Global | Silver Point | Now founder & CEO of Arcana Arcana — risk & portfolio software used by ~7 of the 10 largest multi-manager hedge funds) "When they blow up, the story is never 'Shucks, I actually am not as brilliant as I was before.' What they got wrong was risk, portfolio construction." We cover: - Why 90% of PM failures come from sizing & portfolio construction, not thesis quality - The only two ways to survive long-term: extreme hit rate/slugging, or managing ex-ante correlation - The math of 10 pods long the same trade: factor bets compound, idio bets diversify - Why LTCM is the classic backward-looking correlation failure — and why ex-ante is the whole job - The paradox: "pure fundamental" concentrated funds take the biggest factor bets (up to 80% R²) - Why the best PMs treat every factor exposure like a stock position — same limits, same diligence - Sharpe ratio as a t-statistic against the null hypothesis that you have no skill - The tiger cub who moved to a pod seat and said it felt like playing a video game - Are junior analysts screwed? Dispersion, not extinction - His contrarian take: capital is opening up beyond the Big Four via SMAs Highlights: (00:00) Intro (01:10) The real job of a hedge fund PM: a product sold to allocators (02:52) The 90% failure vector: risk leakage, not bad theses (10:25) Two ways out: hit rate/slugging vs. managing correlations (18:17) Factor bets compound, idio diversifies: why 80% idio becomes 60% at scale (27:33) Factor models as the "perfect benchmark" for every stock at every moment (38:57) The old-school PM who calls factors bullshit — Rich's answer (44:48) Treat factors like stock positions: limits, diligence, sizing (55:29) Why concentrated "pure fundamental" books take the biggest factor bets (01:05:34) Are junior analysts screwed? AI, mock books, & dispersion (01:15:52) Contrarian take: SMA capital opening up beyond the Big Four (01:19:42) The #1 new-launch killer: trying to do too many things at once

Ex-Citadel PM Rich Falk-Wallace (Rich Falk-Wallace) on why 90% of hedge fund blowups are portfolio construction — not bad ideas. Rich Falk-Wallace (PM @ Citadel | Viking Global | Silver Point | Now founder & CEO of Arcana Arcana — risk & portfolio software used by ~7 of the 10 largest multi-manager hedge funds) "When they blow up, the story is never 'Shucks, I actually am not as brilliant as I was before.' What they got wrong was risk, portfolio construction." We cover: - Why 90% of PM failures come from sizing & portfolio construction, not thesis quality - The only two ways to survive long-term: extreme hit rate/slugging, or managing ex-ante correlation - The math of 10 pods long the same trade: factor bets compound, idio bets diversify - Why LTCM is the classic backward-looking correlation failure — and why ex-ante is the whole job - The paradox: "pure fundamental" concentrated funds take the biggest factor bets (up to 80% R²) - Why the best PMs treat every factor exposure like a stock position — same limits, same diligence - Sharpe ratio as a t-statistic against the null hypothesis that you have no skill - The tiger cub who moved to a pod seat and said it felt like playing a video game - Are junior analysts screwed? Dispersion, not extinction - His contrarian take: capital is opening up beyond the Big Four via SMAs Highlights: (00:00) Intro (01:10) The real job of a hedge fund PM: a product sold to allocators (02:52) The 90% failure vector: risk leakage, not bad theses (10:25) Two ways out: hit rate/slugging vs. managing correlations (18:17) Factor bets compound, idio diversifies: why 80% idio becomes 60% at scale (27:33) Factor models as the "perfect benchmark" for every stock at every moment (38:57) The old-school PM who calls factors bullshit — Rich's answer (44:48) Treat factors like stock positions: limits, diligence, sizing (55:29) Why concentrated "pure fundamental" books take the biggest factor bets (01:05:34) Are junior analysts screwed? AI, mock books, & dispersion (01:15:52) Contrarian take: SMA capital opening up beyond the Big Four (01:19:42) The #1 new-launch killer: trying to do too many things at once

Ethan Kho

518,894 views • 1 month ago

A former Citadel PM on why funds actually blow up. Feels relevant these days: "It's much more common that people say: I had this incredible thesis, incredible differentiation." "But I screwed up on portfolio construction and risk — I blew up that way, not the other way around." "Walk into Midtown, throw a dart, you'll find somebody who can generate a positive, idiosyncratic return." "There's a good number of people who can post a positive hit rate on alpha." "Downstream of that, you can build attractive products on the back of that alpha." the real number: "90% of hedge fund failures — PM failures, even analyst failures — are bad portfolio construction. Mis-sizing. All of it." Alpha is common. Surviving your own sizing not so much.

A former Citadel PM on why funds actually blow up. Feels relevant these days: "It's much more common that people say: I had this incredible thesis, incredible differentiation." "But I screwed up on portfolio construction and risk — I blew up that way, not the other way around." "Walk into Midtown, throw a dart, you'll find somebody who can generate a positive, idiosyncratic return." "There's a good number of people who can post a positive hit rate on alpha." "Downstream of that, you can build attractive products on the back of that alpha." the real number: "90% of hedge fund failures — PM failures, even analyst failures — are bad portfolio construction. Mis-sizing. All of it." Alpha is common. Surviving your own sizing not so much.

Ethan Kho

114,292 views • 12 days ago

10 market-neutral PMs, each 80% idiosyncratic. Put them in one book and the math quietly breaks: Rich Falk-Wallace (Rich Falk-Wallace, ex-Citadel PM, founder of Arcana) explains: "Say you have 10 books with momentum exposure. They're long tech, long the latest exciting thing — but they're market neutral. Even if they each have 80% idio, at scale, that 80 comes down. If every one of your PMs has a similar-ish exposure, that book average — even though you've gotten more breadth — is actually much lower. Your idio might be 60. The reason is that factor bets compound on each other. They've been designed to be those things which are sources of correlation. So those things compound. Whereas the remainder — whatever's not a factor bet — diversifies. It becomes like a loaded coin with a 52% hit rate. Take 10,000 coin flips, and the average reduces to the hit rate. Those things diversify. The factor bets don't. You could add 100, you could add 10,000 — it wouldn't reduce the volatility driven by that similarly pointed factor exposure. The independent, idiosyncratic bets diversify away at scale."

10 market-neutral PMs, each 80% idiosyncratic. Put them in one book and the math quietly breaks: Rich Falk-Wallace (Rich Falk-Wallace, ex-Citadel PM, founder of Arcana) explains: "Say you have 10 books with momentum exposure. They're long tech, long the latest exciting thing — but they're market neutral. Even if they each have 80% idio, at scale, that 80 comes down. If every one of your PMs has a similar-ish exposure, that book average — even though you've gotten more breadth — is actually much lower. Your idio might be 60. The reason is that factor bets compound on each other. They've been designed to be those things which are sources of correlation. So those things compound. Whereas the remainder — whatever's not a factor bet — diversifies. It becomes like a loaded coin with a 52% hit rate. Take 10,000 coin flips, and the average reduces to the hit rate. Those things diversify. The factor bets don't. You could add 100, you could add 10,000 — it wouldn't reduce the volatility driven by that similarly pointed factor exposure. The independent, idiosyncratic bets diversify away at scale."

Ethan Kho

30,538 views • 1 month ago

The investors who say "I only look at fundamentals" are taking the biggest factor bets in the market. They just can't see them: Rich Falk-Wallace (Rich Falk-Wallace, ex-Citadel PM, founder of Arcana) explains: "There's a different bucket — that very concentrated person. And for that person, almost paradoxically, they're taking the biggest factor bets. Even though their discussion point is 'we're pure fundamental investors. I just look at company fundamentals.' In the reframing of it, they actually have the biggest factor bets. Their book's R-squared to factors is actually highest. It might be 80%. Because they're not comping to a benchmark, and they're not building a hedged portfolio. So they have the biggest leverage to each of those factors. And if you're going to take these huge factor bets, you ought to be intentional, thoughtful, aware of those pieces."

The investors who say "I only look at fundamentals" are taking the biggest factor bets in the market. They just can't see them: Rich Falk-Wallace (Rich Falk-Wallace, ex-Citadel PM, founder of Arcana) explains: "There's a different bucket — that very concentrated person. And for that person, almost paradoxically, they're taking the biggest factor bets. Even though their discussion point is 'we're pure fundamental investors. I just look at company fundamentals.' In the reframing of it, they actually have the biggest factor bets. Their book's R-squared to factors is actually highest. It might be 80%. Because they're not comping to a benchmark, and they're not building a hedged portfolio. So they have the biggest leverage to each of those factors. And if you're going to take these huge factor bets, you ought to be intentional, thoughtful, aware of those pieces."

Ethan Kho

55,391 views • 1 month ago

[most people don’t lose money because they picked the wrong coin, they lose money because they treat every dollar the same] one of the better investing takes I’ve heard from Ansem lately. he breaks it into 3 buckets: - cash for emergencies - long-term investments that compound - active trades where you take your shots the mistake? most people put 100% into bucket #3 and call it investing. his point wasn’t to avoid risk. “you don’t wanna be all in something like that” because if one trade blows up, your entire portfolio goes with it. everyone wants the 10x. very few people respect the power of compounding 10% a year for a decade. take the moonshots. just don’t gamble the part of your portfolio that’s supposed to survive long enough to catch them.

[most people don’t lose money because they picked the wrong coin, they lose money because they treat every dollar the same] one of the better investing takes I’ve heard from Ansem lately. he breaks it into 3 buckets: - cash for emergencies - long-term investments that compound - active trades where you take your shots the mistake? most people put 100% into bucket #3 and call it investing. his point wasn’t to avoid risk. “you don’t wanna be all in something like that” because if one trade blows up, your entire portfolio goes with it. everyone wants the 10x. very few people respect the power of compounding 10% a year for a decade. take the moonshots. just don’t gamble the part of your portfolio that’s supposed to survive long enough to catch them.

Kaiz

30,283 views • 2 months ago

"There's this feeling that Leopold was the one with the *courage* to take all this risk, or something." "But even that falls flat on a hedge fund manager, I'm afraid." Numerai founder Richard Craib: "Because it's like, someone goes all-in with pocket sevens. And he doubles his money." "Have you learned anything about his courage, or his skill, really? It's a bit foolish." "I also used to think this. I was a young hedge fund manager. I was a 28-year-old hedge fund manager. And I did also have this perception that, surely these big hedge funds are just so risk averse that, for psychological reasons, they refuse to take enough risk." "And I've come to learn that they're taking nearly the exact amount of risk that you should take." "Because these things are mathematical. There's a right amount of risk to take if you have a certain Sharpe ratio. And those numbers are smaller than you think if you want to run money for a very long time." "Leopold was up 400% in H1 of 2026. Well, Warren Buffett was up 5 million percent by basically being sensible for a very long time." "Do you want to do 400%, then lose everything? Or do you want to do the 5 million percent that takes 30 years?" "It's not that some people are unwilling to take risk. It's that they are already taking risk. It's just a small part of their portfolio."

"There's this feeling that Leopold was the one with the courage to take all this risk, or something." "But even that falls flat on a hedge fund manager, I'm afraid." Numerai founder Richard Craib: "Because it's like, someone goes all-in with pocket sevens. And he doubles his money." "Have you learned anything about his courage, or his skill, really? It's a bit foolish." "I also used to think this. I was a young hedge fund manager. I was a 28-year-old hedge fund manager. And I did also have this perception that, surely these big hedge funds are just so risk averse that, for psychological reasons, they refuse to take enough risk." "And I've come to learn that they're taking nearly the exact amount of risk that you should take." "Because these things are mathematical. There's a right amount of risk to take if you have a certain Sharpe ratio. And those numbers are smaller than you think if you want to run money for a very long time." "Leopold was up 400% in H1 of 2026. Well, Warren Buffett was up 5 million percent by basically being sensible for a very long time." "Do you want to do 400%, then lose everything? Or do you want to do the 5 million percent that takes 30 years?" "It's not that some people are unwilling to take risk. It's that they are already taking risk. It's just a small part of their portfolio."

TBPN

41,678 views • 11 days ago

William Sharpe, Stanford professor and Nobel economist: "Citadel and Two Sigma live and die by one number: the Sharpe ratio. It's mine. I built it to tell a skilled strategy from a lucky, reckless one." the thread above is about building a portfolio and knowing when to cut a strategy. sharpe gave the world the single number that answers the only question that matters: is this thing actually good, or just lucky and levered? return alone is a trap. a 40% year isn't impressive if you bet the farm for it. sharpe's ratio divides your return by the risk you took to get it, so a calm 15% can beat a wild 40%. it strips luck and leverage out of any track record, and that is exactly why every fund on earth judges itself by it. this is also how a desk decides when to kill a strategy. not "did it make money," but "did it make enough per unit of risk." a falling sharpe is the signal to cut, long before the P&L ever turns red. he published the math in 1964, won the nobel in 1990, and left it in this free lecture. same story i keep telling: the number that runs every trading floor is old, public, and free. here is the blind spot sharpe himself knew. the ratio assumes risk is smooth and symmetric. a strategy that quietly sells insurance shows a gorgeous sharpe for years, then one tail event erases a decade. a high sharpe is not proof you are safe. it is proof you have not met your bad day yet.

William Sharpe, Stanford professor and Nobel economist: "Citadel and Two Sigma live and die by one number: the Sharpe ratio. It's mine. I built it to tell a skilled strategy from a lucky, reckless one." the thread above is about building a portfolio and knowing when to cut a strategy. sharpe gave the world the single number that answers the only question that matters: is this thing actually good, or just lucky and levered? return alone is a trap. a 40% year isn't impressive if you bet the farm for it. sharpe's ratio divides your return by the risk you took to get it, so a calm 15% can beat a wild 40%. it strips luck and leverage out of any track record, and that is exactly why every fund on earth judges itself by it. this is also how a desk decides when to kill a strategy. not "did it make money," but "did it make enough per unit of risk." a falling sharpe is the signal to cut, long before the P&L ever turns red. he published the math in 1964, won the nobel in 1990, and left it in this free lecture. same story i keep telling: the number that runs every trading floor is old, public, and free. here is the blind spot sharpe himself knew. the ratio assumes risk is smooth and symmetric. a strategy that quietly sells insurance shows a gorgeous sharpe for years, then one tail event erases a decade. a high sharpe is not proof you are safe. it is proof you have not met your bad day yet.

Voltex

65,224 views • 27 days ago

Harry Markowitz, the Nobel laureate who invented modern portfolio theory: "Every fund from Bridgewater to Citadel runs on one equation I wrote as a 25-year-old grad student. Wall Street pays quants $500K to use it. It's free." the thread above teaches you to build a portfolio the real way, with the mathematics of capital allocation. every line of it traces back to one paper markowitz wrote in 1952. before him, "don't put all your eggs in one basket" was folklore. he turned it into algebra. he proved a portfolio's risk isn't the average of its parts, it's driven by how the parts move together, the covariance. combine assets that don't move in lockstep and you cut risk without giving up return. that is the closest thing to a free lunch in all of finance, and he wrote the exact equation for how much of it you get. that single insight, mean-variance optimization, is the engine under every serious fund on earth. renaissance, bridgewater, citadel, your pension, all of them size risk with markowitz's math. he published it in 1952, won the nobel in 1990, and it sits in every textbook and this free lecture. same story i keep telling: the math that runs the trillion-dollar machine has been public and free for seventy years. here is the part markowitz himself warned about. the equation is only as good as the numbers you feed it, your estimates of return and covariance. feed it garbage and the "optimal" portfolio it hands back is confidently, precisely wrong, and it detonates in the exact crisis it was built to survive. the optimizer is free. estimating the future honestly, and knowing when to distrust your own inputs, is the entire job.

Harry Markowitz, the Nobel laureate who invented modern portfolio theory: "Every fund from Bridgewater to Citadel runs on one equation I wrote as a 25-year-old grad student. Wall Street pays quants $500K to use it. It's free." the thread above teaches you to build a portfolio the real way, with the mathematics of capital allocation. every line of it traces back to one paper markowitz wrote in 1952. before him, "don't put all your eggs in one basket" was folklore. he turned it into algebra. he proved a portfolio's risk isn't the average of its parts, it's driven by how the parts move together, the covariance. combine assets that don't move in lockstep and you cut risk without giving up return. that is the closest thing to a free lunch in all of finance, and he wrote the exact equation for how much of it you get. that single insight, mean-variance optimization, is the engine under every serious fund on earth. renaissance, bridgewater, citadel, your pension, all of them size risk with markowitz's math. he published it in 1952, won the nobel in 1990, and it sits in every textbook and this free lecture. same story i keep telling: the math that runs the trillion-dollar machine has been public and free for seventy years. here is the part markowitz himself warned about. the equation is only as good as the numbers you feed it, your estimates of return and covariance. feed it garbage and the "optimal" portfolio it hands back is confidently, precisely wrong, and it detonates in the exact crisis it was built to survive. the optimizer is free. estimating the future honestly, and knowing when to distrust your own inputs, is the entire job.

Rossst.03

44,131 views • 27 days ago

The single best way to break into the Hedge Fund industry — and most people still won't do it: Derek Pilecki, 18-year track record, 21%+ annualized in financials, entire net worth in his own fund. "Since we have the internet, there's a way to break into the industry that didn't exist in the nineties." "You can write up stock ideas. You can research how to write up a stock idea. You can write up your own idea and post it to Seeking Alpha or create your own blog, post it to Twitter." "If you do that 10 times, you'll have a following." "There'll be professional money managers who will read your blog because you wrote up 10 small cap stocks and they own one or two of them." "They read your idea on this bank. They agreed with you. Now they wanna see what other banks you like." "You can find a job that way by just writing up stock ideas and posting them to the internet." "You can break into this industry if you're willing to do that work on your own and put yourself out there." You can just write up 10 stock ideas.

The single best way to break into the Hedge Fund industry — and most people still won't do it: Derek Pilecki, 18-year track record, 21%+ annualized in financials, entire net worth in his own fund. "Since we have the internet, there's a way to break into the industry that didn't exist in the nineties." "You can write up stock ideas. You can research how to write up a stock idea. You can write up your own idea and post it to Seeking Alpha or create your own blog, post it to Twitter." "If you do that 10 times, you'll have a following." "There'll be professional money managers who will read your blog because you wrote up 10 small cap stocks and they own one or two of them." "They read your idea on this bank. They agreed with you. Now they wanna see what other banks you like." "You can find a job that way by just writing up stock ideas and posting them to the internet." "You can break into this industry if you're willing to do that work on your own and put yourself out there." You can just write up 10 stock ideas.

Ethan Kho

200,481 views • 4 months ago

A quant fund that's returned 20% a year for 20 years claims it has no informational edge. It doesn't know anything the market doesn't. The CEO on what the edge actually is: Suhaimi Zainul-Abidin, CEO of Quantedge, explains: "There are two ways you can invest well. You can have skill in the bet you make, or you can have more bets, even if you don't have as good skill." "There's such a thing as an information ratio: the skill of the bet times the square root of the number of independent bets you take." "We certainly don't have all the information. I don't think we know things above and beyond everybody else. And we can't predict the markets." "What we can do is operate one of the most diversified portfolios in the world. Close to 300 distinct markets. Forty to fifty in equities. Fifty different commodity types." "That diversification means your idiosyncratic risk goes down tremendously. And if portfolio risk drops, you can make a decision: do I want to ramp the risk back up? That's exactly what we do." "If you run a concentrated book at high levels of risk, you're asking for trouble. We run high risk, yet a level that ensures there's no risk of ruin." "20% annualized for 10 years, well done. For 20, that's what we've done. But we're going to do it for 50." Many in the industry bid up the skill term. Asia's top quant fund spent 20 years compounding the term underneath the square root.

A quant fund that's returned 20% a year for 20 years claims it has no informational edge. It doesn't know anything the market doesn't. The CEO on what the edge actually is: Suhaimi Zainul-Abidin, CEO of Quantedge, explains: "There are two ways you can invest well. You can have skill in the bet you make, or you can have more bets, even if you don't have as good skill." "There's such a thing as an information ratio: the skill of the bet times the square root of the number of independent bets you take." "We certainly don't have all the information. I don't think we know things above and beyond everybody else. And we can't predict the markets." "What we can do is operate one of the most diversified portfolios in the world. Close to 300 distinct markets. Forty to fifty in equities. Fifty different commodity types." "That diversification means your idiosyncratic risk goes down tremendously. And if portfolio risk drops, you can make a decision: do I want to ramp the risk back up? That's exactly what we do." "If you run a concentrated book at high levels of risk, you're asking for trouble. We run high risk, yet a level that ensures there's no risk of ruin." "20% annualized for 10 years, well done. For 20, that's what we've done. But we're going to do it for 50." Many in the industry bid up the skill term. Asia's top quant fund spent 20 years compounding the term underneath the square root.

Ethan Kho

70,267 views • 7 days ago

a 24-year-old ex-openai researcher ran a fund to $45 billion with eight people, was up 439% net through june, and by the end of july had sold his entire public stock portfolio to ken griffin in a single block trade. griffin described this exact failure mode two years ago, asked why portfolio managers wash out at citadel: "you have a portfolio that is extraordinarily highly concentrated, you have large positions, you cannot demonstrate a clear and concise competitive advantage in why you own those positions." "and there are some people that just, with full information, are unable to help themselves and get to a better portfolio construction." he was also asked the opposite question in the same interview, why citadel keeps working, his third and final answer was this: "it's experience. it's the price paid in losses and pain that converts into wisdom. my leadership team, we've been through a lot of very difficult moments of the markets together. we've learned some very bitter lessons. but it makes us much more effective as investors in periods of turmoil and crisis." citadel started in november 1990. situational awareness started in 2024, long AI infrastructure and short software at roughly 4x leverage. both legs went against it in the same three weeks. there was no bitter lesson priced into that book yet. that's what got bought. he wasn't wrong about AI. he was wrong about the construction of his book.

a 24-year-old ex-openai researcher ran a fund to $45 billion with eight people, was up 439% net through june, and by the end of july had sold his entire public stock portfolio to ken griffin in a single block trade. griffin described this exact failure mode two years ago, asked why portfolio managers wash out at citadel: "you have a portfolio that is extraordinarily highly concentrated, you have large positions, you cannot demonstrate a clear and concise competitive advantage in why you own those positions." "and there are some people that just, with full information, are unable to help themselves and get to a better portfolio construction." he was also asked the opposite question in the same interview, why citadel keeps working, his third and final answer was this: "it's experience. it's the price paid in losses and pain that converts into wisdom. my leadership team, we've been through a lot of very difficult moments of the markets together. we've learned some very bitter lessons. but it makes us much more effective as investors in periods of turmoil and crisis." citadel started in november 1990. situational awareness started in 2024, long AI infrastructure and short software at roughly 4x leverage. both legs went against it in the same three weeks. there was no bitter lesson priced into that book yet. that's what got bought. he wasn't wrong about AI. he was wrong about the construction of his book.

Goshawk Trades

1,606,921 views • 12 days ago

🚨AI PORTFOLIO RISK ANALYTICS (v1)🚨 LIQUIDATION NATION!! Today I am releasing AI PORTFOLIO RISK ANALYTICS to the public GenAI is going to transform how we explain and communicate risk. Most platforms show you numbers. They are hard to explain, hard to interpret, and generally not useful. We are going to show you what those numbers actually mean for your portfolio. This tool is meant to be a "guide and not gospel". AI Analytics is the first of three major upgrades rolling out over the coming weeks. The second is Social. The third is so big I am not ready to talk about it yet. Remember, this is a beta release. There will be edge cases, so pls DM me bugs. We will get them sorted out. *stock universe is liquid North American equities + most major traded ETFs... if there is something you want added let me know* **double check your spelling and make sure all values are positive -> we handle everything on the back end -> see templates for how to upload The goal is to pull back the curtain on how hedge funds actually think about risk and give you tools that are both educational and useful. Watch the video. Tell me what you think.... and as always.... "manage risk"

🚨AI PORTFOLIO RISK ANALYTICS (v1)🚨 LIQUIDATION NATION!! Today I am releasing AI PORTFOLIO RISK ANALYTICS to the public GenAI is going to transform how we explain and communicate risk. Most platforms show you numbers. They are hard to explain, hard to interpret, and generally not useful. We are going to show you what those numbers actually mean for your portfolio. This tool is meant to be a "guide and not gospel". AI Analytics is the first of three major upgrades rolling out over the coming weeks. The second is Social. The third is so big I am not ready to talk about it yet. Remember, this is a beta release. There will be edge cases, so pls DM me bugs. We will get them sorted out. stock universe is liquid North American equities + most major traded ETFs... if there is something you want added let me know **double check your spelling and make sure all values are positive -> we handle everything on the back end -> see templates for how to upload The goal is to pull back the curtain on how hedge funds actually think about risk and give you tools that are both educational and useful. Watch the video. Tell me what you think.... and as always.... "manage risk"

Jared L Kubin

137,005 views • 8 months ago

Everyone predicted hedge fund capital would consolidate into the Big Four. An ex-Citadel PM says the opposite is happening: Rich Falk-Wallace explains: "Five years ago there was a consensus view that all capital would accrue to the big four multi-managers. Today what's happening is almost the opposite. There's this great fragmentation. Lots of the very successful portfolio managers from those firms are launching their own — and the ability to launch your own hedge fund is easier than ever, if you're focusing on the vertical that you're an expert in. If you're an equity long-short PM, you can launch a new hedge fund with separately managed account, SMA-type capital — where an allocator is looking for you to have some degree of risk limits. Fragmentation's the wrong word — it's an opening up of that market. It's not all the capital turning to those biggest firms."

Everyone predicted hedge fund capital would consolidate into the Big Four. An ex-Citadel PM says the opposite is happening: Rich Falk-Wallace explains: "Five years ago there was a consensus view that all capital would accrue to the big four multi-managers. Today what's happening is almost the opposite. There's this great fragmentation. Lots of the very successful portfolio managers from those firms are launching their own — and the ability to launch your own hedge fund is easier than ever, if you're focusing on the vertical that you're an expert in. If you're an equity long-short PM, you can launch a new hedge fund with separately managed account, SMA-type capital — where an allocator is looking for you to have some degree of risk limits. Fragmentation's the wrong word — it's an opening up of that market. It's not all the capital turning to those biggest firms."

Ethan Kho

22,004 views • 28 days ago

The most insane thing i built with AI agents: A full hedge fund in a single file. 7 independent strategies. 2,000 lines of code. 5 symbols. One Expert Advisor. Each strategy has its own trade engine, its own risk parameters, its own magic numbers. They never touch each other. Why one file? Because that's how you control what actually matters: max drawdown across all strategies, overlap prevention so two algos don't stack the same directional bet, and anti-hedging logic for prop firm compliance. Nobody does this. Sharpe ratio above 2. Eight years of data. $100k starting balance. Claude Code launched MetaTrader, configured the parameters, ran the backtest, and switched to the equity curve. I didn't touch anything. Fully autonomous. I shared the exact logic and code structure inside the Discord. This is one of the most ambitious projects i've built so far:not just a strategy, a portfolio engine.

The most insane thing i built with AI agents: A full hedge fund in a single file. 7 independent strategies. 2,000 lines of code. 5 symbols. One Expert Advisor. Each strategy has its own trade engine, its own risk parameters, its own magic numbers. They never touch each other. Why one file? Because that's how you control what actually matters: max drawdown across all strategies, overlap prevention so two algos don't stack the same directional bet, and anti-hedging logic for prop firm compliance. Nobody does this. Sharpe ratio above 2. Eight years of data. $100k starting balance. Claude Code launched MetaTrader, configured the parameters, ran the backtest, and switched to the equity curve. I didn't touch anything. Fully autonomous. I shared the exact logic and code structure inside the Discord. This is one of the most ambitious projects i've built so far:not just a strategy, a portfolio engine.

ZenomTrader

37,856 views • 5 months ago

Bill Ackman on a diversified portfolio: "Diversification protects you from ignorance. Right? If you don't know what you're doing just do a lot of things." If your research correctly identifies the fundamental quality and durable cash flows of a business, extreme concentration is the logical way to beat the market. The wealthiest founders build their fortunes on a "portfolio of one". Ackman said for stock pickers, conducting deep business research, holding just 10 to 12 highly predictable companies provides more than adequate risk management. My only caveat is people vastly underestimate the risks of a business and overestimate their true understanding of the business. This is the single biggest issue with high concentration.

Bill Ackman on a diversified portfolio: "Diversification protects you from ignorance. Right? If you don't know what you're doing just do a lot of things." If your research correctly identifies the fundamental quality and durable cash flows of a business, extreme concentration is the logical way to beat the market. The wealthiest founders build their fortunes on a "portfolio of one". Ackman said for stock pickers, conducting deep business research, holding just 10 to 12 highly predictable companies provides more than adequate risk management. My only caveat is people vastly underestimate the risks of a business and overestimate their true understanding of the business. This is the single biggest issue with high concentration.

CapexAndChill

35,300 views • 23 days ago

One common reason why traders blow up is because of poor position sizing. In other words, how much do you bet on a trade. You can be right on direction 60% of the time and still lose everything if you size your positions poorly. One oversized trade can wipe out months of gains. This is why position sizing is a big part of risk management. Sandeep Rao - SEBI Reg. RA🖖 recently spoke to Tom Basso, one of the original Market Wizards, to discuss his approach to trading. I was listening to the interview and the one thing that stood out to me was how Tom's thinking on position sizing evolved over decades. He started simple: risk the same percentage of equity on every trade, inspired by Larry Hite's philosophy that every bet should be equal in terms of potential loss. But then came a silver trade with explosive volatility. Clients were calling, nervous about the wild swings. So he realized it wasn't just about the amount you could lose—it was also about the speed of movement. High volatility creates psychological stress that leads to poor decisions. So he added a second layer: volatility as a percentage of equity. Now he'd calculate both risk % and volatility %, then take the smaller of the two. Then came the third refinement: margin-to-equity ratios. Some markets have deceptively low risk and volatility but require high margin because of sudden jump risk. By incorporating all three factors, he never got caught overexposed. The result was a position sizing system that automatically scales down when markets get too volatile, protects against margin squeezes, and keeps portfolio risk in check. It's really interesting conversation. Link to the full interview is in the comments.

One common reason why traders blow up is because of poor position sizing. In other words, how much do you bet on a trade. You can be right on direction 60% of the time and still lose everything if you size your positions poorly. One oversized trade can wipe out months of gains. This is why position sizing is a big part of risk management. Sandeep Rao - SEBI Reg. RA🖖 recently spoke to Tom Basso, one of the original Market Wizards, to discuss his approach to trading. I was listening to the interview and the one thing that stood out to me was how Tom's thinking on position sizing evolved over decades. He started simple: risk the same percentage of equity on every trade, inspired by Larry Hite's philosophy that every bet should be equal in terms of potential loss. But then came a silver trade with explosive volatility. Clients were calling, nervous about the wild swings. So he realized it wasn't just about the amount you could lose—it was also about the speed of movement. High volatility creates psychological stress that leads to poor decisions. So he added a second layer: volatility as a percentage of equity. Now he'd calculate both risk % and volatility %, then take the smaller of the two. Then came the third refinement: margin-to-equity ratios. Some markets have deceptively low risk and volatility but require high margin because of sudden jump risk. By incorporating all three factors, he never got caught overexposed. The result was a position sizing system that automatically scales down when markets get too volatile, protects against margin squeezes, and keeps portfolio risk in check. It's really interesting conversation. Link to the full interview is in the comments.

Nithin Kamath

59,268 views • 7 months ago

Elon Musk just told you why caution kills more companies than risk ever has. Musk: “One of the approaches we did take was to proceed at risk with temporary permits.” Hundreds of millions in concrete before the final signature exists. Knowing the full downside. Musk: “Your long-term permit could be denied, in which case you have to stop everything.” Tear it all down. Back to dirt. Every board on Earth calls that unacceptable. Musk calls it cheaper than the alternative. Musk: “Most companies are not willing to take the risk of the temporary permit, and then the risk of having to stop and tear down.” They think they are avoiding risk. They are selecting one. Waiting is not neutral. Waiting is a position. A bet that the market holds, the team stays, and momentum outlasts a system designed to outlast you. It never does. No one says no. The calendar says it for them. Not rejection. Erosion. Musk saw it for what it was. He chose the risk you can see over the risk you cannot. Gigafactories rose in months while the rest of the industry waited on the meeting about the permit. The gap was never resources. It was the willingness to see that waiting is not free. It is the most expensive decision in business. Because it is the only one nobody knows they are making.

Elon Musk just told you why caution kills more companies than risk ever has. Musk: “One of the approaches we did take was to proceed at risk with temporary permits.” Hundreds of millions in concrete before the final signature exists. Knowing the full downside. Musk: “Your long-term permit could be denied, in which case you have to stop everything.” Tear it all down. Back to dirt. Every board on Earth calls that unacceptable. Musk calls it cheaper than the alternative. Musk: “Most companies are not willing to take the risk of the temporary permit, and then the risk of having to stop and tear down.” They think they are avoiding risk. They are selecting one. Waiting is not neutral. Waiting is a position. A bet that the market holds, the team stays, and momentum outlasts a system designed to outlast you. It never does. No one says no. The calendar says it for them. Not rejection. Erosion. Musk saw it for what it was. He chose the risk you can see over the risk you cannot. Gigafactories rose in months while the rest of the industry waited on the meeting about the permit. The gap was never resources. It was the willingness to see that waiting is not free. It is the most expensive decision in business. Because it is the only one nobody knows they are making.

Dustin

18,985 views • 1 month ago

"T. Rowe Price spent 89 years being the responsible one and they just got the green light to put XRP and Dogecoin into your retirement portfolio" "T. Rowe Price is the most responsible pension manager on the planet. They got approval for TKNZ, their active crypto ETF. They can choose up to 15 assets and actively index them, and that goes as far down the risk curve as Shiba Inu and Dogecoin" "Grandpa's pension is about to be exposed to a coin named after a dog from a 2013 meme. It's astounding those things are now being included in an ETF product from T. Rowe Price" "This is a meaningful story because it's a new distribution channel for advisors and retirement money reaching crypto through a very trusted brand. The way people generally invest is through indexing. When you get an index fund of the top five to 15 assets from someone like T. Rowe Price, every other entity is going to follow"

The Wolf Of All Streets

19,666 views • 1 month ago

Japan made a move that should terrify every retail investor paying attention. They just dumped $66 billion of US bonds in a single month. For years, Japan was the engine driving your portfolio higher. They bought our debt without question, and that money flowed into American stocks, real estate, and tech. Your 401k and investment account grew year after year because of this. But here’s what bothers me: That engine is starting to run the other way. As Japan sells more Treasuries, the US needs new buyers. And the only way to attract them is with higher interest rates. That’s a slow poison for your portfolio. They put pressure on stock valuations, mortgages, business investment, and borrowing costs across the economy. Everything gets more expensive. The stuff you own becomes less valuable. Same force that pushed markets higher is about to drag them down. And most people won't realize it until it's showing up in their portfolio.

Japan made a move that should terrify every retail investor paying attention. They just dumped $66 billion of US bonds in a single month. For years, Japan was the engine driving your portfolio higher. They bought our debt without question, and that money flowed into American stocks, real estate, and tech. Your 401k and investment account grew year after year because of this. But here’s what bothers me: That engine is starting to run the other way. As Japan sells more Treasuries, the US needs new buyers. And the only way to attract them is with higher interest rates. That’s a slow poison for your portfolio. They put pressure on stock valuations, mortgages, business investment, and borrowing costs across the economy. Everything gets more expensive. The stuff you own becomes less valuable. Same force that pushed markets higher is about to drag them down. And most people won't realize it until it's showing up in their portfolio.

Felix Prehn 🐶

54,838 views • 11 days ago

Paul Tudor Jones on the real secret to surviving the market: "i'm always thinking about losing money as opposed to making money. don't focus on making money, focus on protecting what you have" in this interview, Jones explains why defense is the most important part of the game. the pros know that if you just focus on not losing money, the profits will take care of themselves. they never let a bad trade blow up their entire account. if the setup is wrong, they cut the loss immediately and move on stop treating your portfolio like a lottery ticket. protect your downside at all costs and the upside will handle itself bookmark and watch the video below

Paul Tudor Jones on the real secret to surviving the market: "i'm always thinking about losing money as opposed to making money. don't focus on making money, focus on protecting what you have" in this interview, Jones explains why defense is the most important part of the game. the pros know that if you just focus on not losing money, the profits will take care of themselves. they never let a bad trade blow up their entire account. if the setup is wrong, they cut the loss immediately and move on stop treating your portfolio like a lottery ticket. protect your downside at all costs and the upside will handle itself bookmark and watch the video below

ludoonchart

145,733 views • 1 month ago