Yesterday I agreed with you, with a twisted feeling, but today, I have to say: „Yes! “.
I don´t get the concept of the “> X years”, or someone once said “I will invest, when your EX is >8”. I don´t think, that time adds value to significance, by definition.
I had to deal with job applicants in a former life and to some I could say Yes or No, after two minutes, with some I had to go through extensive talks and call-backs. So I could imagine, to buy a Darwin above a threshold of 4-6 month, when the strategy is clearly visible to me. Thinking of the new Darwins in Nemesis` portfolio, there are some I don´t understand and I wouldn´t buy them, if they show 3, 4, 5 or 10 years of positive performance.
Plus, we talked about, how some strategies are favored by certain market environments. Also here, time by itself is irrelevant, especially, as I would say, that market phases last 1-5 years. One would have to wait, till a change in market behavior is measurable and look how a Darwin copes with that.
I am often confronted with trades that seem to have a quite possible downside, but a big upside, or other more complex situations. For example, a trade, that broke an important resistance, where a big up move is likely, but a pullback too. I take this trade, but with a smaller size. In other words: I scale my position size, according to my conviction.
Not meant to advertise my really outstanding Darwin again, but to help portfolio managers to develop more adaptive criteria.