Good morning everyone!

Something changed in my conversations over the past two weeks, and I want to start there, because it's the first genuinely new energy I've felt in months.

The dormant players are coming back.

You know who I mean… The ones who looked at this market - where even top-notch teams' strategies would run for three or four months, capture some steady alpha, maybe some beta, nothing spectacular, and then just stop performing… and said:
"Nahhh. I'm not participating in this. Wake me when it's over." They stepped out, and honestly, given everything I've written this year, I couldn't blame them…

They're slowly now stepping back in. Not deploying too actively yet, but preparing for the next leg of this market.

Dusting off the diligence lists, restarting conversations, positioning for what could be a genuinely better period of market conditions. After the longest drought I can remember, the pulse is (starting to come) back. And it makes me excited, at least on paper, to see if we (allocators, teams, and service providers) could a c t u a lll y (and finally) make some living in addition to (just) surviving.

Still… allocators are cautious. Unsure. No confidence in the entry. Understandable… they've been burned by strategies that run hot for a quarter and die. But watch what that caution actually turns into, because it splits into two mirror-image problems that together freeze everything:

Problem one: the flat team. There's a tier-one team - and trust me, there are many right now - that's been flat for six months. The allocator believes in them. Likes the communication, the setup, the people. Everything checks. But they've been flat so long that the allocator can't picture the performance returning. So the position becomes: "Print 4–5% first, then we'll write the check." They want to see the first uptick before they commit.

Problem two: the performing team. Different team, printing steady 3–4% months, consistent as Swiss o´clock. Now the same allocator says: "Give us one bad month so we can ape the dip." They don't want to enter at the strategy's all-time high, catch an immediate drawdown, and then sit underwater wondering if it (ever) recovers. They want to buy their manager on sale.

Look at those two positions side by side. Flat team: won't invest until it goes up. Performing team: won't invest until it goes down. Between the two of them, there is no team you can actually invest in, ever. The allocator isn't doing diligence anymore but they're trying to time their manager the way retail times the market. And everything I've written this year about timing applies with full force: direction is easy, timing is nearly impossible, and is 99% a result of mere luck.

Before we proceed to the juiciest part of the newsletter, I want to highlight a product that has been incredibly valuable to the MFT teams in this current market. If feel that if I would not share it here - I would do many SMA-focused managers a disservice, as the only aim of the Monday is to provide value to the readers… so here we go.

Basic OHLCV won’t give you an edge anymore. Most MFT alpha lives a level deeper, in the order book, flow and market microstructure. Aggregating them across a dozen exchanges, point-in-time takes an engineering effort most teams can’t justify in-house.

Aperiodic already built it for you: Aperiodic gives you 100+ point-in-time metrics (slippage, flow toxicity, Kyle’s Lambda, book imbalances, basis, funding) as Parquet via API. Pull a clean feature matrix in a few commands and run zero infrastructure.

If you’re running a market-neutral MFT book, Aperiodic Factors gives you proven cross-sectional factors you can test on day one - since going live in early 2025, a 7 factor composite achieved Sharpe Ratio of 2.8 (market-neutral).

Ping Mark (tg: @almostintuitive) for a free trial! Mention its from the newsletter and trial is yours. Grab it - whats there to lose…

Now back to squeezing the lemon juice.

Here's the part the T I M E R S miss. Suppose you nail it… you wait for the flat team's uptick, or the hot team's dip, and you enter beautifully. What happens next?

You test for two or three months. Then, if it works, you scale up. And at the scale-up decision, you face the exact same paradox again - with significantly more size (aka be prepared to go through the process again and again.)
You watched them print plus-months through your test period; now you're deploying the real ticket precisely when the strategy might be due its rough patch. The timing problem doesn't get solved by good entry. It just gets rescheduled to the moment when it's most expensive.

Actually quite ridiculous. Anyway, good luck with timing the entry of a strategy.

There's no clean solution to that. But there's a practical one, and I've said it before on some other Monday.

Write the first check as soon as you find something you like. Small, fast, and controlled. Do not overthink it.

Notice the word like, because it's carrying a lot of weight here - I'll come back to it. But first, the mechanics, because they kill every excuse for waiting:

The test amount doesn't matter. It can be 100K, it can be 50K - most teams accept that today - especially when it's clearly a test, because everyone understands that absolutely nobody makes money on the test ticket. That's not what it's for. It's for controlling downside risk while you learn how the strategy actually behaves in your account - how it trades, how it drawdowns, how the team communicates when a week goes wrong.

And if you're nervous about timing, you have a dial for that: leverage. Enter at reduced leverage while you're uncertain; turn it up as trust builds. You don't need to time the entry when you can size it correctly, imo. That's the entire trick. The test ticket converts an unanswerable timing question into a manageable sizing question - and starts the one clock that actually matters, which is the relationship clock - something you cannot replace.

One thing that has genuinely surprised me.

At some point this year, I honestly believed we'd hit the ceiling - that there was nobody meaningful left to discover, no new teams that could actually be valuable to allocators. The map felt almost complete.

I was wrong (like most of the time, thankfully). New teams keep surfacing. Real ones - uncovered, unlisted, quietly running money with setups worth an allocator's time. And on the other side, the mirror image: allocators actively coming to market, coming back to market, or preparing to. Many of them have raised serious money and now face the oldest problem in finance: the worst money is the money sitting in your bank account doing nothing. They need to deploy. They need yield. They have bosses they report to. The drought taught them patience; the idle cash is now teaching them urgency.

So: reactivating players, fresh teams, loaded allocators. Everything's in place for the machine to start turning again.

Now, back to that word: L I K E A B I L I T Y.

As mentioned… the first (F A S T) check should go to something you like - and I mean that far more literally than it sounds. Because here's an awkward truth from my seat: I know teams with extraordinary performance that are simply not likable. The numbers are real, to. The edge is real (maybe short time who knows but you get the point.)

And yet - the setup feels retail, not institutional. The communication is erratic, the vibe is off, and you finish the call knowing you would never trust these people with a large amount of money. And in a retail setup, you don't put large money. That's the whole point of the word.

Ultimately, you're not allocating to a Sharpe ratio. You're entering a relationship - and the relationship is the layer of trust that everything else gets built on. Performance opens the door. Likability and trust are what let real size walk through it. A team that's brilliant but untrustable has a hard ceiling on what it can ever raise, and no real time result on PnL fixes that.

Now the other side of the reactivation story, and it's darker.

Some allocators have been extraordinarily patient. They allocated eight months ago, scaled teams up, and then - flat. Month after month. And these weren't nervous allocators peppering teams with "how's the strategy doing?" They gave room. They stayed quiet. They did everything right: picked likable teams, built trust, saw institutional setups, scaled them.

And now the axe is falling. I'm watching allocators cut 50% of their non-performing teams in one sweep. After that long with no returns - what's the point? The same money is being reallocated, right now, to other teams who are starting their report-building from zero with the same allocator.

And here's what every team needs to understand about that axe, because I will repeat this until it's tattooed (on my forehead lol) on the industry:

If you lose an allocator, the chance of getting them back is essentially zero.

There is no "we'll cut you now and come back when you're performing again." That sentence has never once come true in my experience. The experience of holding your strategy through months of nothing is not an experience anyone signs up for twice. It's like a business partner who let you down on the deal that mattered - the relationship doesn't reset when his numbers improve. It's a one-off opportunity, and it's gone. The money has moved, the new team is building trust with it, and your seat at that table no longer exists.

So what's actually in your control when the performance isn't?

Because here's the honest hierarchy: performance is not fully under your control. Everything else is. And the teams that survive flat periods are separated from the teams that get cut by one behavior above all:

If you've been flat for a long time and you go silent - no updates, no calls, nothing - you are almost certainly losing the allocation. The silence reads as either not noticing or not caring, and both are fatal.

But if, in your worst stretch, you take initiative - over-communicate precisely while you're under-delivering - you have a (real) chance. Weekly touchpoints instead of monthly. What you're seeing, what you're adjusting, what you're deliberately not touching. Offer the call before they ask for it. Serve the client harder than the curve is serving them: a fee accommodation, a small gesture, anything that signals we know, we're on it, you matter, we know we are under pressure.

I've told you before - the allocator's patience is built in the bad months. Five weeks of proactive communication in a flat period buys more relationship than a year of green months ever will (ok maybe not right comparison but lets stretch it).

Be at the absolute top of your game on everything you control. Because the thing you don't control will eventually turn - and the only question is whether the allocator is still there when it does.

Last observation, and it loops back to where we started.

The market has what I can only call shiny object syndrome. The moment something new surfaces - a team nobody's heard of, an unfamiliar name with a clean track - attention snaps to it instantly. Fresh energy attracts fast interest, and a genuinely new team entering right now can generate meaningful allocator interest quickly. If that's you: this is, strangely, a good moment to be discovered.

The hard part - and I say this as the person whose full-time job it is - is the finding. You'd think writing a newsletter every Monday means teams and allocators just flow in organically at scale. It's not the case. It is much harder than this. Even doing this full-time, with the network we have, surfacing genuinely excellent teams is grinding, relationship-by-relationship work. That's the job: getting to know the people performing well before anyone else does, and being a genuinely valuable partner to them and to the allocators on the other side.

But here's the encouraging part, and it's my closing thought: the universe keeps proving bigger than I believed. Every time I think we've mapped it, someone new walks in. After the year this industry has had, that - more than any price chart - is what tells me this market isn't done (yet).

That's the read this week.

If you're an allocator sitting on idle money and trying to time your manager - stop timing, start testing. And if you're a team, or you know an exceptional one we haven't found yet: we make introductions that turn into real interest, fast, and we reward anyone who connects us properly. Reach me at [email protected].

Stay patient. Stay honest. Stay alive.

See you next week.

Quants.Space is an institutional discovery engine for systematic and discretionary trading strategies — 130+ independent, world-class quantitative and discretionary trading teams, each with vetted track records and unique alpha sources, plus a dedicated Emerging Managers sector for early-stage teams. Our mission is simple: connect institutional capital and allocators directly with best-in-class teams, all within a secure Separately Managed Account (SMA) framework. If you're an allocator active in the SMA space, or a team opening SMA capacity for institutional tickets, get in touch at [email protected].