Judging investment skill requires observing performance through both bull and bear markets. A fixed period, like 5 or 10 years, can be misleading if it only captures one type of environment, often rewarding mere risk tolerance rather than genuine ability.

A crucial, yet unquantifiable, component of alpha is avoiding catastrophic losses. Jeff Aronson points to spending years analyzing companies his firm ultimately passed on. While this discipline doesn't appear as a positive return on a performance sheet, the act of rigorously saying "no" is a real, though invisible, driver of long-term success.

When challenged by an activist investor, Unilever demonstrated that its purpose-driven brands, like Dove and Hellmann's, outperformed others in its portfolio. They used hard KPIs such as pricing power, profitability, and pace of growth to prove that a strong purpose directly contributes to superior financial ROI.

Investors often judge investments over three to five years, a statistically meaningless timeframe. Academic research suggests it requires approximately 64 years of performance data to know with confidence whether an active manager's outperformance is due to genuine skill (alpha) or simply luck, highlighting the folly of short-term evaluation.

The firm doesn't just decide a factor is obsolete. Their process begins by observing within their transparent 'glass box' model that a factor (like book-to-price) is driving fewer and fewer trades. This observation prompts a formal backtest to confirm its removal won't harm performance.

The fund's core belief is that an impact lens can uncover economic returns unavailable to traditional investors. The strategy is not about sacrificing returns, but demonstrating that understanding impact benefits can directly translate into long-term economic outperformance, thereby influencing broader capital allocation.

Investment research suggests the significant performance signal in governance isn't achieving a perfect score, but rather avoiding companies in the worst decile. The key is to steer clear of clear red flags—like misaligned boards or poor capital allocation—as this is where underperformance is most clearly correlated.

Market efficiency increases with company size and liquidity. Therefore, the excess returns (alpha) from investment factors like value are significantly larger in the inefficient micro-cap space. For large-caps, the market is so efficient that factor premiums are minimal, making low-cost indexing a superior strategy.

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.