I previously wrote about @Alpha_Theory and our day 1 usage for position sizing. Today I’m going to write about Lightkeeper, our portfolio analytics tool that I’m surprised isn’t as popular as it’s better known peer, Novus. A 🧵:
Most investors spend a lot of time trying to find good ideas and doing good research, and much less time thinking about how to get the most out of those ideas (position sizing) and reflecting on their mistakes and successes.
When we do spend time to reflect, we mostly use our memory, which is faulty, and fall victim to recency bias or other cognitive biases. A tool like lightkeeper allows us to more accurately reflect on our successes and failures with data unencumbered by our emotions.
At its core, Lighhtkeeper is a portfolio analytics tool that allows you to measure high level portfolio stats like alpha, batting average, slugging %, beta, P&l, roic, and other key stats in granular ways - by geo, long/short, sector, etc.
Furthermore, and maybe most powerfully, you can create custom tags that allow you to analyze your performance by any category you like - eg by analyst, idea source, investment style, etc.
There are other tools that do this, I just prefer lightkeeper. Regardless of what tool you use, even if it’s manual, I’m a big proponent of having good data upon which to reflect. I’m excited to test my hypotheses and see the results - curios to hear other ideas of what to track
1) I plan to track idea performance by source of idea - was it internally or externally generated and, if so, by who. I think my internal ideas perform better, and I wonder whether ideas I e source
2) I want to track idea performance by qualitative criteria I use to size positions within alpha theory. I have hypotheses of what makes an idea better or worse and I’d be curious to see what does best empirically after I have a large enough sample size.
3) I plan to eventually track idea performance (namely alpha) for other idea generators on the team, to aid in providing feedback and assessing performance over time. I plan to give idea generators access to their lightkeeper data once a year as part of reviews.
4) I have lots of different types of longs I will invest in and I’m curious how my performance varies by idea type - eg broken growth, deep value, liquidations, GARP, etc. same on short side. I will track performance this way as well.
5) what are other things you think would be interesting to track other than the obvious (eg alpha long vs short)? My thinking is once I have 2-3 years of data I can draw some tentative conclusions and make thoughtful modifications to better maximize performance.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Let’s talk HF comp, which is all most people want to talk about. I think analysts don’t appreciate nuances of incentives founders face based on responses. Doing this as public service and for my own clarification of thought. A 🧵:
First, a few basic premises: 1) I believe the main thing that matters in comp is finding a boss who will be transparent, generous, ethical, and has or will develop a biz with good economics, and will share them. If you have that you have the ingredients to be treated fairly.
2) the best indication of this is firm turnover, initial offer, and reference checks. Ppl don’t change much in this regard. Firm turnover is #1 red flag of everything bad. Materially below market offer also a sign of cheapness especially if firm economics are good.
Many an aspiring PM dreams of launching a fund one day. Through my start up process I’ve gotten some better datapoints on fund expenses for two types of institutional launches - large (150m+) and small (10-30m). Will discus small here. A 🧵
I believe a small launch can get by with $100-150k/yr of mgmt co expense and still be semi-institutional. I am more confident about large launch vs small launch numbers since that is closer to my (hoped for!) experience. Those with more knowledge please chime in.
Main budget items are: 1) personnel 2) service providers, 3) rent, 4) research. In general, fund admin, legal, audit, and some research can be charged to the fund. As long as you launch with 10m+ and go cheap these are not a massive drag on returns
Idea gen and research is the process of finding alpha. Position sizing and buy / sell discipline is the mechanism of maximizing it. I use Alpha Theory software to aid in position sizing decisions and buy/sell discipline. A 🧵on our framework.
Most intellectual thought and firm resources are spent on the search for alpha not the maximization of the alpha you find. Alpha theory helps create optimal sizes around my key principles and a process to enforce it. Here is our process:
1) I first set a “risk budget” for any position that helps to determine max size. Max size = (risk budget) / (downside case loss). So if you don’t want to lose more than 200bp, and your downside case on a stock is -20%, this position can be 10% max.
I’m nearly a month into launching an equity L/S hedge. I’ve spent the last couple months seeking advice from allocators and other launches (both successful and not) on how to launch well. A 🧵of my favorite advice received so far:
1) Leave Well - The ethical thing to do is often also the selfishly right thing to do. I left my prior fund after a good year. I have nothing but positive things to say about my former partners. This shouldn’t be rare, but it is.
If you wait to leave until things go bad, you risk launching with a tarnished brand. You also make it more likely your departure will harm your prior fund, which won’t do you any favors with your former employer. Having them as a good reference is helpful.
Many investors are uncomfortable investing without an obvious catalyst - usually something good that will happen that will make the stock go up soon. I think these are overvalued. Let’s discuss the benefits of “no-catalyst” investing. A 🧵:
I don’t like obvious catalysts - exploration of strategic alternatives, announced spinoff, etc. The catalyst is usually quickly priced in, and all investors are usually playing for the same event.
When your thesis is the same as everyone else’s, and it doesn’t happen, you can lose a lot. If your thesis is the same as everyone else and you are right, you usually don’t make as much as you think.
In my prior thread I walked through the basics of factor mismatches. Let’s have fun with numbers. I put this together quickly - I welcome criticism. In short, factor mismatches are so significant that they often dwarf stock selection alpha.
Let’s do some simple math - let’s recreate factor mismatch by creating two 100 long / short 50 portfolios. Value Fund is long 100% VTV (value ETF) and short 50% ARKK. Growth Fund is long 100% ARKK and short 50% VTV.
The results for both funds are nothing short of disastrous. Value Fund is up 8% in 2019, but down 74% in 2020. It bounced back in 2021 up (38%) - assuming it didn’t get zeroed in Jan 2021 and up 29% in 2022, but it’s still down 50% cumulatively vs 2019.