Compounding has positive asymmetry. A stock can only lose 100%, but it can gain multiples of that. This means a portfolio with one stock compounding at +26% and another at -26% doesn't break even over time; the winner's gains eventually dwarf the loser's total loss, leading to strong positive returns.

Unlike typical investors who chase performance, sophisticated institutions often rebalance into managed futures when the strategy is in a drawdown. They take profits after strong years (like 2022) and re-allocate capital during weak periods to maintain strategic exposure.

The most profitable periods for trend following occur when market trends extend far beyond what seems rational or fundamentally justified. The strategy is designed to stay disciplined as prices move to levels few can imagine, long after others have exited.

The primary driver of market fluctuations is the dramatic shift in attitudes toward risk. In good times, investors become risk-tolerant and chase gains ('Risk is my friend'). In bad times, risk aversion dominates ('Get me out at any price'). This emotional pendulum causes security prices to fluctuate far more than their underlying intrinsic values.

The smooth exponential curve of compounding is a myth. In reality, it occurs in a world of shocks and uncertainty. True long-term compounding isn't just about picking winners; it's the result of having a robust process that allows you to survive the inevitable randomness and volatility along the way.

A 50% portfolio loss requires a 100% gain just to break even. The wealthy use low-volatility strategies to protect against massive downturns. By experiencing smaller losses (e.g., -10% vs. -40%), their portfolios recover faster and compound more effectively over the long term.

Contrary to expectations, drawdowns in managed futures frequently occur when equity markets are performing well. The strategy's recovery periods, however, often coincide with equity market turbulence, highlighting its counter-cyclical nature and making it behaviorally difficult to hold.

While biotech seems exceptionally volatile, data shows its average 60% annual peak-to-trough drawdown isn't dramatically worse than the ~50% for typical non-biopharma small caps. The perceived risk is disproportionate to the actual incremental volatility required for potentially asymmetric returns.

Even long-term winning funds will likely underperform their benchmarks in about half of all years. A Vanguard study of funds that beat the market over 15 years found 94% of them still underperformed in at least five of those years. This means selling based on a few years of poor returns is a flawed strategy.