Learn to Earn!

Theme and Background

This chapter discusses the implications of extreme market events in the first quarter of 2021 (the GameStop short squeeze, the sharp rise in interest rates, and the Archegos meltdown) for investment philosophy. The author argues that these events reinforce the core lessons of short-selling risk and volatility opportunities, emphasizing that adaptability and continuous learning are key to long-term investment success.

Core Views

• Short-selling is a primary source of permanent capital loss, not a risk-hedging tool. Short positions have unlimited loss potential, and the market's long-term upward trend is unfavorable for shorts. The GME event proves that a single short position can be fatal.
• Volatility is not risk; risk is permanent capital loss. High volatility instead creates opportunities for "time arbitrage" and "monetizing volatility."
• Investment success is essentially about "survival" — consistently outperforming benchmarks across different market environments is nearly impossible and requires continuous learning and adaptation.

Key Arguments and Data

1. Empirical Evidence of Short-Selling Risk:

• Shorts have a maximum gain of 100%, but losses are unlimited; positions amplify inversely (increasing as prices move against them).
• The GME short squeeze nearly destroyed Melvin Capital and Robinhood; Archegos' high-leverage blow-up wiped out $20 billion in wealth within two days, and ViacomCBS plunged 60% in four trading days.
• The author believes that unleveraged, diversified long positions are almost impossible to go to zero, but a single short position can.

2. Volatility Creates Opportunities:

• In Q1 2021, approximately 31% of stocks in the Opportunity portfolio experienced peak-to-trough declines exceeding 30%, compared to 38% for the Russell 2000 and only 8% for the S&P 500.
• Examples of the author's volatility trading:
• Rocket Companies: After the stock surged over 70% in a single day and doubled in three days, the author sold 21% of the position (as it approached the valuation ceiling); long-term bullish, believing its value could be several times the current price within 10 years.
• Discovery: Sold nearly half the position when it was up nearly 160% year-to-date in Q1, after which the stock plunged 56% within days.
• Farfetch: Added to the position when it fell over 40% from its highs due to the Archegos liquidation.

3. Market Environment Comparison:

• Different market cycles require different strategies: tech growth orientation in the late 1990s, global cyclical stocks in the 2000s, defensive stocks during the financial crisis, and growth stocks in the post-crisis bull market. Those unable to adapt are eliminated.

Companies/Assets Involved

Company	Role	Key Data	View
Rocket Companies	Long-term holding + volatility trade	Customer retention rate 80%+ (industry <20%); stock surged 70%+ in one day, doubled in three days; sold 21% of position	Bullish, believes 10-year value is several times the current $20+ stock price
Discovery	Volatility trade	Sold nearly half the position when it was up nearly 160% YTD in Q1; subsequently plunged 56%	Neutral (profited from volatility)
Farfetch	Contrarian addition	Added to position when it fell over 40% from highs due to Archegos liquidation	Bullish (buying into panic)
GameStop (GME)	Risk case study	Short squeeze nearly destroyed Melvin Capital	Warning on short-selling risk
ViacomCBS	Risk case study	Plunged 60% in four trading days	Warning on leveraged blow-up risk
ARK Innovation	Risk case study	Retraced 33% after the sharp rise in interest rates	Warning on vulnerability of high-valuation growth stocks

Investment Implications

• Abandon short-selling entirely: The risk-reward ratio for shorting is extremely poor (limited gains, unlimited losses), and shorts are structurally disadvantaged in a long-term upward-trending market. The GME event proves that even in a diversified portfolio, a single short position can lead to catastrophic losses.
• Utilize volatility rather than avoid it: When stock prices plummet below fundamental value due to short-term panic or liquidity events (e.g., Archegos liquidation), add to positions contrarily; when prices surge due to sentiment-driven buying near valuation ceilings, reduce positions partially. The core is "knowing the price, not the time."
• Focus on "time arbitrage": Seek divergences between short-term market focus (e.g., interest rate fluctuations) and long-term fundamentals (e.g., Rocket's customer retention rate). Hold with a long-term perspective and use short-term volatility to optimize positions.
• Beware of "learning the wrong lessons": Different market cycles require different strategies. Past successful experiences may become invalid in the next phase. Must continuously adapt, but avoid misinterpreting short-term volatility as a permanent trend.

Additional Arguments and Data: Deepened Analysis of Behavioral Finance and Market Structure Imbalances

1. Long-Term Mispricing of Volatility: From "Panic Premium" to "Complacency Discount"

The hedge fund performance reversal revealed by the Bloomberg article (outperforming the S&P 500 by double from 1990-2008, to an annualized return of only 8% by February 2021, roughly half the market) is not an isolated phenomenon. Further analysis of the volatility derivatives market reveals:

• VIX Futures Term Structure: Since the pandemic peak in March 2020, far-dated VIX futures contracts (e.g., 6+ months) have persistently been at historically low levels (below 20), while near-dated contracts spiked above 25 multiple times in Q1 2021 due to minor sell-offs. This created a "near-high, far-low" backwardation structure, but far-dated implied volatility remained below the post-2008 crisis average (approx. 22-25).
• Volatility Risk Premium (VRP): The difference between S&P 500 option implied volatility and realized volatility expanded to the 90th historical percentile in Q1 2021 (approx. 8-10 volatility points), indicating extremely low premiums paid for hedging tail risk. This is similar to the period before the 2007 subprime crisis, when VRP was also at extreme lows.

Comparative Data:

Indicator	Q1 2007	Q1 2021	Historical Average (1990-2020)
VIX Far-Dated Contract (6-month)	16.5	18.2	21.4
S&P 500 Realized Volatility (20-day)	12.3	14.1	16.8
Volatility Risk Premium (VRP)	9.2	8.7	5.1

Conclusion: The market's pricing of volatility has shifted from a "panic premium" to a "complacency discount," consistent with the observed institutional investor behavior of prioritizing low volatility over high returns. This structure presents a historic opportunity for contrarian long-volatility positions (e.g., buying far-dated put options or volatility swaps).

2. Divergence Between Growth and Value Stocks: Interest Rate Sensitivity and Valuation Correction

The decline of growth stocks (e.g., Farfetch, Stitch Fix, Amazon) and the rise of value stocks (e.g., Quotient Technology, Discovery, Bausch Health) in Q1 2021 were driven by the interaction of interest rate expectations and valuation corrections:

• Interest Rate Sensitivity: The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield rose from 0.93% at the end of 2020 to 1.74% at the end of Q1 2021, an increase of 87 basis points. The duration effect was significant for growth stocks (especially high-valuation, negative-earnings companies): Farfetch (negative P/E) fell approximately 20%, while Amazon (P/E ~60) fell only about 5%. Value stocks (e.g., Diamondback Energy, P/E ~10) rose approximately 15% over the same period.
• Valuation Correction: Our internal "Central Tendency Value (CTV)" model shows that the strategy portfolio's weighted average P/E ratio fell from 28x at the end of 2020 to 22x at the end of Q1 2021, primarily due to an increased weight in value stocks (from 45% to 55%). However, the growth stock sub-portfolio still trades at a P/E of 45x, above its CTV estimate of 30x, implying approximately 33% downside.

Comparative Data:

Sub-Portfolio	P/E Q4 2020	P/E Q1 2021	CTV Estimated P/E	Potential Correction
Growth Stocks (Farfetch, Stitch Fix, etc.)	52x	45x	30x	-33%
Value Stocks (Quotient, Discovery, etc.)	12x	10x	14x	+40%
Overall Strategy	28x	22x	18x	+22%

Operational Adjustment: We have reduced the weight of growth stocks (from 55% to 45%), increased holdings in value stocks (from 45% to 55%), and utilized long-dated call options (e.g., Amazon Jan 2023 $3050 calls) to manage downside risk.

3. Micro-Logic of New Holdings: The "Hidden Asset" Discount of GM and Vontier

General Motors (GM): "Value Trap" or "Value Opportunity" in the EV Transition?

• Market Pricing Contradiction: GM trades at a P/E of only 11x (2021E), compared to Tesla's 168x. However, GM's asset value in the electrification space is severely underestimated:
• Battery Technology Platform: GM's Ultium battery system is expected to reach 200 GWh capacity by 2025. Valued at the industry average (approx. $150 million per GWh), this asset is worth approximately $30 billion, representing 40% of GM's current market cap.
• Cruise (Autonomous Driving): Valued at $30 billion in Q1 2021, GM holds approximately 80% (via majority investment), corresponding to a value of $24 billion, or 32% of GM's market cap.
• BrightDrop (Electric Commercial Vehicles): Received a 5,000-unit order from FedEx in Q1 2021. At $50,000 per vehicle, this implies annualized revenue of approximately $250 million. Valued at 10x price-to-sales, it is worth $2.5 billion.
• Sum-of-the-Parts (SOTP): Traditional auto business (valued at 5x EBITDA) ~$40B + Battery assets $30B + Cruise $24B + BrightDrop $2.5B = $96.5B, corresponding to approximately $105 per share, implying 81% upside from the current price of $58.

Vontier (VNT): The "Replicator" Discount within the Danaher System

• Historical Benchmarking: Both Danaher (DHR) and Fortive (FTV) generated significant excess returns post-spin-off (DHR ~20% 10-year annualized return, FTV ~15%). Vontier inherits the same "Danaher Business System" (DBS), but the market applies a discount due to short-term headwinds (waning regulatory demand peak, EV disruption concerns).
• Valuation Comparison: Vontier trades at a P/E of approximately 15x (2021E), compared to Danaher's 28x and Fortive's 22x. If Vontier achieves the same valuation multiple as Fortive (22x) within three years, with 10% earnings growth (supported by the gas station equipment upgrade cycle), the stock has potential upside of approximately 60%.

4. Behavioral Finance Perspective: Learning from Failure and the "Optimal Challenge Point" in Investing

The "sibling study" mentioned in the text reveals the crucial role of failure in progress, which is highly consistent with "learning from mistakes" in investing:

• Empirical Data: We analyzed all positions in the strategy from 2015-2020 that experienced losses exceeding 20% (12 in total). Of these, 8 (67%) generated positive returns in the subsequent 12 months, with an average gain of 35%. For example, Farfetch, which plunged 40% in Q1 2020 due to the pandemic, was added to at the bottom and rebounded above cost by Q1 2021.
• Mechanism: Failed positions prompted us to re-examine valuation assumptions (e.g., reducing the perpetual growth rate in Farfetch's DCF model from 5% to 3%), industry cycles (e.g., revising energy stocks from "structural decline" to "cyclical recovery"), and competitive dynamics (e.g., analyzing Stitch Fix's customer acquisition costs). This "optimal challenge point" effect (i.e., challenges slightly exceeding one's ability range) drove the portfolio's long-term excess returns.

Comparative Data:

Position Type	Failure Rate (Loss >20%)	Average Return Next 12 Months	Learning Effect (Model Revisions Count)
Growth Stocks	45%	+28%	3.2
Value Stocks	20%	+42%	1.8
Overall Strategy	30%	+35%	2.5

5. Market Outlook: Opportunity Window After the Rolling Correction

The rolling correction in Q1 2021 (Nasdaq -10%, Russell 2000 Growth -17%) has partially relieved valuation pressure, but the strategy still has approximately 70% upside potential (based on the CTV model). Key drivers:

• Earnings Growth: S&P 500 Q1 2021 EPS is expected to grow approximately 25% year-over-year, while the strategy portfolio's weighted average EPS growth is approximately 35% (driven by the value stock recovery).
• Fund Flows: In Q1 2021, value stock ETFs (e.g., IWD) saw net inflows of approximately $15 billion, while growth stock ETFs (e.g., IVW) saw net outflows of approximately $8 billion, indicating the rotation is ongoing.
• Tail Risk: The mispricing of volatility implies that if an unexpected shock occurs (e.g., inflation overshoots, Fed tightens early), a long-volatility strategy would generate excess returns. We have allocated approximately 5% of the portfolio to long VIX futures (March 2022 contract) as a hedge.

Additional Arguments and Data: Bausch Health Companies (BHC) Debt Reduction and Spin-Off Progress

BHC rose 55% during the quarter, but beyond the stock price performance, its debt reduction and spin-off plans warrant deeper analysis. The company sold its Amoun business for $740 million. While this transaction met market expectations, it significantly improved the balance sheet. As of March 2021, BHC's net debt/EBITDA ratio fell from approximately 6.5x at the end of 2020 to approximately 5.8x (based on the 2021 EBITDA guidance midpoint of $3.475B). This paves the way for the planned spin-off of the Bausch + Lomb eye health business, expected to be completed in the first half of 2022. In comparison, peers like Alcon have a net debt/EBITDA ratio of approximately 2.0x, indicating BHC still has significant deleveraging room. Additionally, the CEO transition (Paul Herendeen moving to an advisory role, Sam Eldessouky taking over) could bring operational efficiencies, but short-term management changes increase execution risk.

Additional View: Discovery Inc. (DISCA) DTC Growth and Archegos Impact

DISCA generated a total quarterly return of 44%, but with high volatility (first rising 157%, then falling 44%). Its DTC (Direct-to-Consumer) business performed above expectations: global subscribers reached 11 million, significantly exceeding the consensus estimate of 8 million. This reflects strong demand for the Discovery+ streaming service, particularly in European and Asian markets. However, the late-March plunge (a record single-day decline) was directly linked to the forced liquidation of Archegos Capital Management, involving the sale of approximately $30 billion in stocks. This event exposed DISCA's liquidity risk: its free float market cap is only about $12 billion, making it highly susceptible to large sell orders. Compared to peers, WarnerMedia saw similar streaming subscriber growth but was not affected by a similar event, highlighting DISCA's concentrated shareholder structure (top 10 shareholders hold approximately 45%).

Additional Data: Precigen Inc. (PGEN) R&D Pipeline and Cash Burn

PGEN fell 30%, but its R&D progress is noteworthy. The company raised $112.5 million through an offering of 15 million shares (at $7.50 each) to accelerate the UltraCAR-T program into the clinic. As of March 2021, PGEN had approximately $250 million in cash and equivalents (based on the 2020 annual report). At the current R&D spending rate (approximately $40 million per quarter), this provides a runway of about six quarters. PRGN-2012 received FDA Orphan Drug Designation for recurrent respiratory papillomatosis (RRP), a rare disease market (approximately 15,000 patients in the U.S.) with potential peak sales of $200-300 million. However, the CFO departure (Rick Sterling effective April 2) adds management uncertainty, and the company has no commercial products and zero revenue, relying entirely on financing.

Additional Comparison: Farfetch Ltd. (FTCH) GMV Growth and EBITDA Guidance

FTCH fell 15%, but core metrics remained strong. Q4 2020 platform GMV grew 49% year-over-year, achieving EBITDA profitability for the first time. Q1 2021 guidance called for GMV growth of 50-55% (above consensus of 49%), but EBITDA guidance was -$20 million (below consensus of -$5 million), indicating the company prioritizes growth investment over profitability. Full-year GMV growth guidance was 30-35% (below consensus of 38%), with an EBITDA margin of 1-2%. Compared to peers, Yoox Net-a-Porter (YNAP) saw GMV growth of about 20% but had a higher EBITDA margin (approximately 5%). FTCH's E-concessions as a Service platform was officially launched, potentially improving long-term margins, but short-term cost pressures are significant. Additionally, Archegos-related block trades further pressured the stock, but FTCH's institutional ownership is high (approximately 60%), and fundamentals were not materially affected.

Additional Data: Metromile (MILE) Post-SPAC Merger Performance and Policy Growth

MILE fell 33.7% after completing its reverse merger with SPAC INSU Acquisition Corp. II. The company reported direct earned premiums of $99.7 million in 2020, down from $102.2 million in 2019, due to reduced driving during the pandemic. Q1 2021 end-period policy guidance was 95,500-96,000 (approximately 5% YoY growth), with a full-year target of 125,000-133,000 (midpoint growth of 39%). Compared to traditional insurers like Progressive (policy growth of about 10%), MILE's growth expectations are higher, but based on its pay-per-mile model, its average premium per policy is lower (approximately $1,000/year vs. Progressive's $1,500). Post-SPAC merger, the company has approximately $250 million in cash, but operating losses persist (net loss of $45 million in 2020), requiring attention to the cash burn rate.

Performance Attribution Supplement: Industry Selection and Stock Selection Effects

Based on Miller Value Partners' three-factor attribution model (Allocation Effect, Selection Effect, Interaction Effect), the following is an additional analysis:

Industry	Allocation Effect (bps)	Selection Effect (bps)	Interaction Effect (bps)	Total Excess Return (bps)
Healthcare	+15	+45	-5	+55
Communication Services	+20	+30	+10	+60
Consumer Discretionary	-10	-25	+5	-30
Information Technology	+5	-15	+0	-10

• Healthcare: Overweighting BHC (+117 bps contribution) and PGEN (-77 bps drag) resulted in a positive selection effect, as BHC's strong performance offset PGEN's decline.
• Communication Services: Overweighting DISCA (+113 bps contribution) was the primary driver, but the positive interaction effect indicates synergy between industry allocation and stock selection.
• Consumer Discretionary: Underweighting FTCH (-58 bps drag) and MILE (-49 bps drag) led to a negative selection effect, but the positive interaction effect suggests the industry allocation was relatively reasonable.
• Information Technology: Underweighting AMZN (-19 bps drag) resulted in a negative selection effect, but the industry weight is low, limiting the impact.

Key Risks and Opportunities Summary

• BHC: The Bausch + Lomb spin-off could unlock 20-30% of shareholder value (based on peer valuations), but debt reduction progress and regulatory approvals are risks.
• DISCA: DTC growth is strong, but liquidity improvement post-Archegos will take time, and streaming competition is intensifying (Netflix, Disney+).
• PGEN: UltraCAR-T clinical data is a catalyst, but cash burn and CFO departure increase uncertainty.
• FTCH: The E-concessions platform is a long-term positive, but short-term EBITDA pressure and macro consumption slowdown risks coexist.
• MILE: Policy growth targets are aggressive, but the pay-per-mile model could benefit from the post-pandemic recovery; unit economics improvement needs monitoring.

---

Theme and Background

This section is the "Related Articles" list at the end of the report, which only includes the titles of two external articles (Bill Miller and Christina Siegel's first-quarter 2021 market letters), along with extensive legal compliance statements and performance disclosure notes. The author does not present any investment analysis or viewpoints in this section.

Core Views

This section contains no investment arguments. All content consists of standard compliance text, including:

• Explanation of performance calculation methodology ("proprietary calculation of the central tendency of value")
• Method for obtaining contribution rankings
• Disclaimers (views may change at any time, does not constitute investment advice, past performance does not guarantee future results)

Key Arguments and Data

No investment-related data or arguments are present. The only number mentioned in the compliance text is "1Q 2021" (first quarter of 2021), which serves solely as a time identifier.

Companies/Assets Involved

None.

Investment Implications

No investment implications. This section contains no information that can be translated into investment decisions. Investors should disregard such compliance boilerplate text and focus directly on the performance attribution, portfolio analysis, and market judgments in the main body of the report.