What is Anchor Point

The strategy and structure of Anchor Point is the combination of three perspectives I’ve developed over the course of my investing career:

 

1. The pros and cons of various investing strategies I’ve experienced

2. The strengths, weaknesses and drivers of conviction within my personal investing style

3. My belief in an evolving landscape for generating alpha

 

Starting my career on the sellside (equity research), I developed an understanding of how various types of investors frame information and what drives them to change their views. Transitioning to a career on the buyside (long/short equity), I experienced contrasting models - from a sector-specific role at a “Pod” focused on high idea velocity, near term catalysts and tight risk management to a generalist seat at a “Tiger Cub” styled firm identifying longer-term inflection points. 

 

Over time, I’ve noticed the tools, timelines and information asymmetry that historically generated alpha has become increasingly crowded, more expensive and less reliable. 

 

Anchor Point was created in response: a strategy grounded in uncovering the big picture, anchoring to a well–defined risk/reward, anticipating evolving narratives and taking advantage of volatility. 

 

Goodbye inflection points, hello anchor points.

​

The Game Has Changed

​

For much of the past cycle, long/short equity investing was about catching inflection points in fundamentals. The standard approach relied on alternative data sets (e.g. credit card receipts, channel checks, expert calls, etc.) to gain information asymmetry and establish conviction once confirming datapoints became visible. Early on, information asymmetry was greater, and the cost of discovery was lower. 

​

That framework has since become increasingly crowded, expensive and time intensive to maintain. Credit card data became so widely distributed it’s now the expectation and required to understand the setup into events. Expert networks are becoming commoditized as channel checks are widely published, and transcripts are used to influence the narrative. AI based tools are only accelerating this trend as investors will soon be able to uncover the “real-time truth” almost instantly. 

​

I was lucky to experience this shift first-hand as a consumer analyst across various types of investment firms. First on the sellside when an exclusive group of hedge funds started utilizing credit card data to trade names like Coach and Michael Kors in 2014/2015. Then at a ‘pod’ where access to the weekly Nielsen data was used to anticipate the more widely distributed monthly data as a potential catalyst. And finally, as a heavy user of expert calls to generate proprietary channel checks and get up-to-speed on new ideas/inflections ahead of peers. There’s no wonder why alpha has been compressed, and performance has been particularly volatile across the consumer sector over the last ~5 years. 

​

But as the game changes, I believe the source of alpha is shifting. 

​

Knowing what is “true” today is not enough. The proliferation of data and advancements in AI mean everyone is required to see the same puzzle pieces in a shorter amount of time. I believe the real differentiation going forward will be the ability to uncover the big picture, quantify ‘what if’, anticipate ‘how so’, and manage portfolio risk accordingly. 

​

That’s where Anchor Point is structured to compete. 

​

My Approach

 

​See the Bigger Picture

​

Every position begins with a broader framing:

• What is the company or industry trying to achieve relative to where it stands today, and why?

• What are the possible outcomes if they succeed, fail, or if macro conditions shift?

• What must investors see to reframe the narrative under each scenario?

​

I think of this as assembling a puzzle without seeing the picture on the box. In the past, investing edge came from finding more puzzle pieces and organizing them faster—credit card data, expert calls, or channel checks gave earlier access to fragments of the picture. Today, those tools are widely available to anyone willing to pay, meaning many investors can collect the same pieces at the same time. Differentiation now comes from interpreting the image those pieces represent before it’s obvious. Are the blue tiles an underwater ocean scene or the sky above a forest? Recognizing the right picture earlier—and knowing which additional pieces need to be revealed before the average investor sees it too—is the core of my approach. This requires synthesizing industry structure, competitive positioning, and investor psychology into a forward-looking mosaic, rather than simply cataloguing what’s already in view to increase conviction.

​

Quantify the “What If”

​

Because I initiate positions before having clear visibility into the fundamental inflection, my first priority is to rigorously quantify and stress-test the downside. The objective is to establish an “anchor point” - a level where I have conviction that the risk case is largely embedded in the stock price. Only once that foundation is in place do I focus on the reward case: quantifying ‘what if the company or industry achieves its goals?’ From there, I envision the catalysts that could provide incremental evidence over time and draw in other investors as visibility improves.

​

It is important to distinguish this from a mean reversion strategy. I am not simply betting that depressed earnings power or multiples will revert back to historical levels. Instead, I conduct two layers of diligence: first, ensure the risk case is well reflected in the current price, and second, gain conviction in a credible path—at some point—for fundamentals and narrative to improve. This combination of downside protection and forward-looking potential is what creates the asymmetry I seek.

​

Anticipate “How So”

​

The diligence in this stage is focused on assessing both the possibility and plausibility for how a company’s fundamentals and investor perception could evolve over time without trying to time specific events. A quote from one of my favorite investing books - Capital Returns by Edward Chancellor – helps articulate the key difference between Anchor Point and inflection point investing (emphasis mine):

​

“We found that the kind of opportunities created by capital cycle analysis often have long gestation periods, as the timing of the pay-off was highly uncertain. As a result, we discovered that our approach has worked best when we invest in a relatively large number of stocks, holding onto them for long periods of time. This rather goes against the grain of our industry where the preference has been to hold concentrated portfolios, confirming a fund manager’s conviction in his or her ideas, albeit for shorter and shorter periods of time.” - Capital Returns by Edward Chancellor (2016) 

​

To clarify, Anchor Point’s strategy is not traditional “cigar butt” value investing, where the company/asset value is simply too cheap to ignore. Nor is it inflection-point investing, where timing and sizing are meant to take advantage of a specific ‘aha’ moment. Instead, it’s a hybrid approach focused on underwriting downside to create the ability to be patient for opportunities where multiple paths exist for fundamentals and perception to change at some point over the next 1-3 years, even if precise timing cannot be forecast.

​

Manage Portfolio Risk Accordingly

​

I manage portfolio level risk in two primary ways. The first is through position sizing. Because conviction is anchored more in the potential path than in the precise timing of catalysts, positions are initiated in smaller sizes and can scale over time. As incremental evidence emerges and visibility improves, I selectively increase exposure—often waiting for short-term volatility to add at more attractive levels (as opposed to chasing as soon as new evidence is revealed). This approach ensures that capital is protected early in the life of an idea while still allowing for meaningful upside participation as the thesis gains traction.

​

The second component is through exposure hedging. I call this framework the “Parachute Approach” which I will detail in a separate write-up, but the goal is straightforward: isolate company-specific upside while neutralizing unpredictable macro and category-level swings that would trigger the risk case scenario. 

​

Together, these two elements provide the structure to protect the portfolio’s principal while staying positioned to capitalize on asymmetric opportunities (both long and short).

​

Structural and Personal Alignment

​

Anchor Point is structured to align with both the structural realities I believe are shaping today’s equities markets and the investment style/process that plays to my strengths. Structurally, it avoids the high fixed costs of utilizing alternative data, expert networks and rigid infrastructure. It side steps the need to compete directly where speed and accuracy are increasing while attempting to minimize time spent on maintenance work to understand setups and expectations. Instead, the framework emphasizes risk/reward asymmetry and disciplined portfolio construction to enable patience, stability and clarity across cycles. 

​

Equally important, Anchor Point is grounded in my belief that markets and stock prices are driven by a series of probabilities rather than absolute truths. Sustainable success depends on positioning where the odds are attractive and the downside is protected rather than predicting the exact moment of change or magnitude of earnings power. Additionally, the process aligns with my strengths of understanding investor behavior, willingness to be a patient contrarian and preference for lower idea velocity. 

​

Ultimately, the game will continue to evolve, and Anchor Point will stay nimble to adapt. While it’s easier said than done, now is the time to execute.