Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

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...

GoshawkTrades's profile picture

Goshawk Trades

74,151 subscribers

39,360 просмотров • 20 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

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
1:27:08

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 просмотров • 22 дней назад

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."
1:14

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 просмотров • 19 дней назад

[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.
4:02

[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 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

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.
50:53

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 просмотров • 16 дней назад

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.
22:10

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

43,022 просмотров • 16 дней назад

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.
1:29

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 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

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.
1:48

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

1,371,576 просмотров • 1 день назад

🚨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"
6:11

🚨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 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

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."
1:00

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 просмотров • 17 дней назад

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.
1:29

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 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

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.
0:48

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

35,201 просмотров • 11 дней назад

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.
4:58

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

59,213 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

"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"
1:45

"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 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

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.
0:35

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 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

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
43:56

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

145,217 просмотров • 19 дней назад

The closer you get to a financial goal, the less time you have to recover from a market fall. Yet many portfolios remain just as risky near the goal as they were at the start. Reducing risk over time sounds easy, but behaviour often gets in the way. When markets are rising, cutting equity exposure feels like missing out. When they fall, it feels like locking in losses. So many investors delay rebalancing and take more risk than they should. Life Cycle funds address this through a pre-defined glide path. They invest across equity, debt, and gold, gradually reducing equity exposure and making the portfolio more conservative as the target year approaches. Zerodha Fund House has launched two such funds: - Zerodha Life Cycle Fund 2036: for goals roughly 10 years away - Zerodha Life Cycle Fund 2041: for goals roughly 15 years away The NFO is now open on Coin by Zerodha. Link in the comments. Here's all you need to know👇
5:34

The closer you get to a financial goal, the less time you have to recover from a market fall. Yet many portfolios remain just as risky near the goal as they were at the start. Reducing risk over time sounds easy, but behaviour often gets in the way. When markets are rising, cutting equity exposure feels like missing out. When they fall, it feels like locking in losses. So many investors delay rebalancing and take more risk than they should. Life Cycle funds address this through a pre-defined glide path. They invest across equity, debt, and gold, gradually reducing equity exposure and making the portfolio more conservative as the target year approaches. Zerodha Fund House has launched two such funds: - Zerodha Life Cycle Fund 2036: for goals roughly 10 years away - Zerodha Life Cycle Fund 2041: for goals roughly 15 years away The NFO is now open on Coin by Zerodha. Link in the comments. Here's all you need to know👇

Zerodha

31,151 просмотров • 29 дней назад

Martin Shkreli says running a hedge fund is the worst job in finance, that a newsletter doing $50 million of revenue beats almost every fund on the planet, and that people only take the job because it's the "sexiest thing" being master of the universe. "I have a friend who wants to start a hedge fund. I told him, this is the most painful, horrible business in the world. Why do this?" "If you start a newsletter business that makes $100 million a year, even $50 million a year of revenue, you've done better than almost every hedge fund on the planet." "You do not want to do this job." "And the reason people do it, and I did it too, and I would never do it again, is it's the sexiest thing in the world. You think you're the master of the universe..." "It's waking up at 3 a.m. checking Korean stock prices and waking back up at 6 wondering what's happening in the world."
0:48

Martin Shkreli says running a hedge fund is the worst job in finance, that a newsletter doing $50 million of revenue beats almost every fund on the planet, and that people only take the job because it's the "sexiest thing" being master of the universe. "I have a friend who wants to start a hedge fund. I told him, this is the most painful, horrible business in the world. Why do this?" "If you start a newsletter business that makes $100 million a year, even $50 million a year of revenue, you've done better than almost every hedge fund on the planet." "You do not want to do this job." "And the reason people do it, and I did it too, and I would never do it again, is it's the sexiest thing in the world. You think you're the master of the universe..." "It's waking up at 3 a.m. checking Korean stock prices and waking back up at 6 wondering what's happening in the world."

Fireside Alpha

195,335 просмотров • 1 день назад

People Are Learning Red Lobster Didn’t Go Bankrupt Because Of Endless Shrimp, They Were Attacked By Wall Street For Their Land Here’s the full story “The only reason Red Lobster's going into bankruptcy is because a hedge fund wanted them to go into bankruptcy.” “The media will never stop covering for hedge funds while making it seem like every problem is the fault of the American people. Like, I'd be willing to bet you think Red Lobster went into bankruptcy because of endless shrimp. You know, the endless shrimp promotion they had. Because that's what the media's told you. They've been telling you repeatedly that the reason Red Lobster went into bankruptcy was that they had the endless shrimp combo and the greedy American people just took advantage of it. That's not what happened. No, what happened was a hedge fund bought Red Lobster and as a condition of the sale, they made therm split up their land and their restaurants. Because up until that point, Red Lobster actually owned all of the land that their restaurants were located on. And then once they made them split that up, the hedge funds made the leases on that land so expensive that the Red Lobsters couldn't possibly continue to operate. So Red Lobster had to keep trying new and new things to try to make enough money to pay these leases. And it was never enough to be able to afford what the hedge fund wanted to charge them. So now they're going into bankruptcy. But the media is not talking about that and the American people were the problem. That Red Lobster made terrible marketing decisions and the American people took advantage of it. But make no mistake, the only reason Red Lobster's going into bankruptcy is because a hedge fund wanted them to go into bankruptcy. They wanted to put Red Lobster out of business so they could take the land that the Red Lobsters were on. Because Red Lobster has some amazing locations across the United States. And now the hedge fund is going to be able to sell off all the little pieces of Red Lobster, completely shutting them down and just have the land all to themselves. And look, I don't like that hedge funds are allowed to do that. Investors are allowed to f*ck over another company. But what shouldn't be happening is the media being complicit and trying to hide that fact. It's not just the hedge funds, it's not just the government, it's also the media. Absolutely f*cking nobody is on our side. Absolutely nobody is giving us the true facts except for each other.”
2:01

People Are Learning Red Lobster Didn’t Go Bankrupt Because Of Endless Shrimp, They Were Attacked By Wall Street For Their Land Here’s the full story “The only reason Red Lobster's going into bankruptcy is because a hedge fund wanted them to go into bankruptcy.” “The media will never stop covering for hedge funds while making it seem like every problem is the fault of the American people. Like, I'd be willing to bet you think Red Lobster went into bankruptcy because of endless shrimp. You know, the endless shrimp promotion they had. Because that's what the media's told you. They've been telling you repeatedly that the reason Red Lobster went into bankruptcy was that they had the endless shrimp combo and the greedy American people just took advantage of it. That's not what happened. No, what happened was a hedge fund bought Red Lobster and as a condition of the sale, they made therm split up their land and their restaurants. Because up until that point, Red Lobster actually owned all of the land that their restaurants were located on. And then once they made them split that up, the hedge funds made the leases on that land so expensive that the Red Lobsters couldn't possibly continue to operate. So Red Lobster had to keep trying new and new things to try to make enough money to pay these leases. And it was never enough to be able to afford what the hedge fund wanted to charge them. So now they're going into bankruptcy. But the media is not talking about that and the American people were the problem. That Red Lobster made terrible marketing decisions and the American people took advantage of it. But make no mistake, the only reason Red Lobster's going into bankruptcy is because a hedge fund wanted them to go into bankruptcy. They wanted to put Red Lobster out of business so they could take the land that the Red Lobsters were on. Because Red Lobster has some amazing locations across the United States. And now the hedge fund is going to be able to sell off all the little pieces of Red Lobster, completely shutting them down and just have the land all to themselves. And look, I don't like that hedge funds are allowed to do that. Investors are allowed to f*ck over another company. But what shouldn't be happening is the media being complicit and trying to hide that fact. It's not just the hedge funds, it's not just the government, it's also the media. Absolutely f*cking nobody is on our side. Absolutely nobody is giving us the true facts except for each other.”

Wall Street Apes

2,190,709 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Joe Blitzstein, Harvard statistics professor: "Jane Street pays $600K for people who can do one thing in their head: compute the expected value of a bet before they take it. I teach it free at Harvard. skip it and you're the casino's favorite customer." this free lecture holds the entire "edge" every casino and every fund quietly runs on, and the man teaching it put his whole Harvard probability course online for free, where millions have watched it. at the board it's simple. expected value is every outcome times its probability, added up into one number that tells you what a bet is worth on average. the roulette wheel sits at minus 5.26 percent, so every dollar you push across the table is worth about 94 cents back to you and the rest to the house. it never changes and it never has to. that's the whole "edge", minus the marketing. expectation goes back to Pascal, Fermat and Huygens in the 1650s. it has been free for almost 400 years. same point as my casino piece above: the house wins because its number is positive and yours is negative, trade after trade. the calculation is free and every fund runs it on every position. what they cannot sell you is the honesty to compute your real edge instead of the one you wish you had. that is the number that actually decides who goes broke, and no course can make you face it.
50:22

Joe Blitzstein, Harvard statistics professor: "Jane Street pays $600K for people who can do one thing in their head: compute the expected value of a bet before they take it. I teach it free at Harvard. skip it and you're the casino's favorite customer." this free lecture holds the entire "edge" every casino and every fund quietly runs on, and the man teaching it put his whole Harvard probability course online for free, where millions have watched it. at the board it's simple. expected value is every outcome times its probability, added up into one number that tells you what a bet is worth on average. the roulette wheel sits at minus 5.26 percent, so every dollar you push across the table is worth about 94 cents back to you and the rest to the house. it never changes and it never has to. that's the whole "edge", minus the marketing. expectation goes back to Pascal, Fermat and Huygens in the 1650s. it has been free for almost 400 years. same point as my casino piece above: the house wins because its number is positive and yours is negative, trade after trade. the calculation is free and every fund runs it on every position. what they cannot sell you is the honesty to compute your real edge instead of the one you wish you had. that is the number that actually decides who goes broke, and no course can make you face it.

Voltex

384,032 просмотров • 14 дней назад

Registered nurse/whistleblower Michelle Spencer: "I know a sonographer who's been a sonographer for 40 years. She can look at an ultrasound of a mother, [her] placenta, and she can tell them, you got Pfizer, you got Moderna... it's in the placenta... even if the father got it, the baby is affected." This clip of Spencer (Michelle Spencer) is taken from an interview with Jodi O'Malley (Jodi O'Malley) posted to the NursesOutLoud (Nurses Out Loud) Rumble channel on November 1, 2025. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "They have not investigated the dead babies. They— They did investigate briefly after my investigation, when I said, you have an obligation to investigate. They went back and they checked, and they found that all of the fetal demises, 95% of them had Covid-vaccinated mothers. So that is a huge amount. "And the other little percent, maybe the record of the mother wasn't in there, because over here in California, they're highly vaxxed. Yes, most of them did get vaccinated because the OB doctor pushes it on them every single time. So they're highly vaxxed. "And then also I know a sonographer who's been a sonographer for 40 years. She can look at an ultrasound of a mother, a placenta, and she can tell them, you got Pfizer, you got Moderna. And if that's crazy, to be able to see that in an ultrasound. And if that patient, the mother, did not get COVID vaccine. The COVID vaccine, that means the father did, and it's in the placenta. So even if the father got it, the baby is affected. "And so there was— There's a huge correlation, it's like an obvious correlation between the COVID vaccine and these dead babies... One of my nursing friends told me a couple weeks after my investigation. She said, yeah, they went back and checked, and they found this correlation. And, she just told me to— Just by by mouth. By word of mouth. And so, now that I've been working with Greg, I've told him that. So he's gonna try to get an order for discovery to go back and check the fetal demises and the COVID-vaxxed mothers, to find the correlation, which is clearly there."
1:57

Registered nurse/whistleblower Michelle Spencer: "I know a sonographer who's been a sonographer for 40 years. She can look at an ultrasound of a mother, [her] placenta, and she can tell them, you got Pfizer, you got Moderna... it's in the placenta... even if the father got it, the baby is affected." This clip of Spencer (Michelle Spencer) is taken from an interview with Jodi O'Malley (Jodi O'Malley) posted to the NursesOutLoud (Nurses Out Loud) Rumble channel on November 1, 2025. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "They have not investigated the dead babies. They— They did investigate briefly after my investigation, when I said, you have an obligation to investigate. They went back and they checked, and they found that all of the fetal demises, 95% of them had Covid-vaccinated mothers. So that is a huge amount. "And the other little percent, maybe the record of the mother wasn't in there, because over here in California, they're highly vaxxed. Yes, most of them did get vaccinated because the OB doctor pushes it on them every single time. So they're highly vaxxed. "And then also I know a sonographer who's been a sonographer for 40 years. She can look at an ultrasound of a mother, a placenta, and she can tell them, you got Pfizer, you got Moderna. And if that's crazy, to be able to see that in an ultrasound. And if that patient, the mother, did not get COVID vaccine. The COVID vaccine, that means the father did, and it's in the placenta. So even if the father got it, the baby is affected. "And so there was— There's a huge correlation, it's like an obvious correlation between the COVID vaccine and these dead babies... One of my nursing friends told me a couple weeks after my investigation. She said, yeah, they went back and checked, and they found this correlation. And, she just told me to— Just by by mouth. By word of mouth. And so, now that I've been working with Greg, I've told him that. So he's gonna try to get an order for discovery to go back and check the fetal demises and the COVID-vaxxed mothers, to find the correlation, which is clearly there."

Sense Receptor

61,416 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад