This sounds clever but many funds did exactly that. What’s your point?
S&P + nvidia was better than just S&P over the last 5 years.
S&P + nvidia was better than just S&P over the last 5 years.
You're giving an example of beating the market in the past, which is not useful. You can do that with blind luck.
There are funds that beat them often. Is your claim they don’t exist? Or that you can’t find them.
When you say funds did "exactly that", the "exactly that" you're talking about is not the thing OP is asking for.
Taking on 90% of upside and 100% of downside is one way to make a convincing argument, and nobody does it.
Let's make the dice analogy. You can't make a convincing argument that you will roll a 5, even though people roll 5 all the time. Talking about people that rolled 5 in the past is proving entirely the wrong point.
The reason why no fund will take that deal is the market for investments is much more favorable to managers than that.
That's the problem. When you use the phrase "exactly that", you're making a claim that you're not talking past.
I agree that this is a talking past situation. But that makes your original post wrong, because of how you used the phrase "exactly that".
> The reason why no fund will take that deal
It's less about this specific deal and more about any deal that shows confidence.