Everything is shared in two places: the RM Capital Partnership WhatsApp group (real-time trade alerts, quick updates) and Substack for the full write-ups — new idea theses, quarterly updates on existing positions, and earnings commentary. Once you're whitelisted, you'll be added to both. You're also welcome to browse the Substack archive anytime to see the level of detail before deciding.

Not necessarily — but it's common, and worth understanding why if it happens. Two forces can compress first-year returns; neither is a sign anything's wrong when they do:

Gradual capital deployment. You won't build your full position in every name on day one. Prices move, and some names may not be attractively priced the moment you join, so your portfolio catches up to mine gradually over the year rather than starting fully invested. A portfolio that's 40% invested for the first two months and 100% invested by month six captures less of a strong market than one that started fully invested on January 1st — purely from the deployment schedule, independent of stock-picking.

Timing lag between idea and execution. I trade my own account in real time, but you're reading the idea and deciding independently, which naturally introduces a delay of days to weeks between when I act and when you do (if you choose to at all). In a rising market that lag costs a little; in a falling one it can help. Over a full year it tends to average out, but in any single year it can be a meaningful swing factor either way.

By the following year, once you're fully invested and no longer catching up, your portfolio should track much more closely with mine. This is exactly why the minimum-contribution section above asks for patience in year one specifically — I'd rather set that expectation up front than have it be a surprise.

This fee structure is modeled on the partnership terms used by investors like Warren Buffett and Mohnish Pabrai — a hurdle rate plus a performance fee only above it — but weighted more in partners' favor: a higher hurdle and a lower fee than the “6% hurdle / 25% fee” those partnerships are best known for (see the fee table above).

As the model stands today, the performance baseline resets on January 1st each year, and each year is judged purely on its own return from that fresh baseline. A year with a negative return costs you nothing — the fee only applies above the hurdle, and a loss is obviously below it. The following year is then evaluated fresh from wherever your account started that year (a lower starting point, after a down year) — meaning a performance fee could apply on a recovery year even if, across both years combined, you're not yet net ahead of where you started. I'd rather state that plainly here than have it be a surprise later.

No. This isn't discretionary or managed money — every trade is one you choose to make and execute yourself, in your own brokerage account. I share my research, my reasoning, and every trade I personally make, in real time and in full, but acting on it (and the risk that comes with it) is always your decision.

The one thing I can point to: my own capital in this strategy is roughly 20 times the size of a typical partner's contribution, so in absolute dollar terms I'm exposed to far larger losses than you are when something goes wrong — the same % move costs me proportionally much more. That's real alignment, not insurance. There's no compensation, reimbursement, or clawback for losses, the same as with any self-directed decision made off public research. Investing involves real risk of loss, and nothing here should be read as a guarantee of any outcome — see the full disclaimer at the bottom of this page.