H&H International Investment, LLC 13F holdings and portfolio analysis

已就緒H&H International Investment, LLC · Duan Yongping

登錄後可基於當前選中的策略克隆一個新分支,繼續在新分支裏調整參數與權重。

官方策略
用户分支
返回基金列表

Baseline

分析消息
分支:
Baselinetested
策略問答參考3 條參考問答

基於這隻基金最新一期數據預生成的問答,可直接作為對話上下文使用。

baseline13FChat AI
What does directly following the disclosed baseline portfolio expose an investor to?

Directly following the baseline exposes an investor to very high concentration in a few large-cap names, especially Apple. In the baseline artifact, AAPL is 51.42%, BRK.A 21.09%, and NVDA 7.89%, while the top 5 total 91.45% and the top 10 99.84%. Sector exposure is similarly concentrated: Information Technology is 61.98% and Financials 21.09%. That structure helped drive a 25.74% annualized return and 10.02 alpha, but it also means portfolio risk is dominated by a handful of securities rather than diversified factor or sector bets.

Show me how much of baseline return and drawdown came from AAPL, BRK.A, and NVDA concentration.
baseline13FChat AI
Which recent baseline periods best explain the risk-return trade-off?

The baseline trade-off is well illustrated by a mix of strong alpha periods and weak, concentrated drawdown periods. Positive examples include 2024-03-31, when optimized return was 13.04% versus SPY at 2.31% for +10.72% excess, and 2025-06-30, when return was 13.73% versus 4.2% for +9.53% excess. Weak examples include 2024-06-30, when baseline returned 2.94% versus SPY at 9.83% for -6.89% excess, and 2024-12-31, when baseline lost -9.52% versus SPY at -3.63% for -5.89% excess. So the same concentrated structure that generated outsized upside also created periods of meaningful benchmark lag and a -27.69% max drawdown.

Plot the best and worst baseline periods against turnover and concentration to see when concentration paid off.
baseline13FChat AI
What should a user inspect next before deciding whether the baseline is acceptable?

A user should inspect three things next: single-name concentration, turnover spikes, and lag risk. The baseline artifact flags Apple above 51% weight, top five above 91%, and a period with 98.9% rebalance turnover in the risk notes. It also notes filing-based implementation delay, which is critical for a 13F strategy because actual trades can occur weeks after the manager acted. Even though estimated implementation cost was only 1.3837 and Sharpe was 1.06, the combination of concentration and lag can make realized results diverge sharply from the backtest.

Can you summarize baseline acceptability as a checklist using concentration, turnover, cost, and 13F lag?
登錄後即可基於上方策略與右側數據,直接與 AI 對話分析。
登錄後開始對話…
可參考左欄策略與右欄數據。