Every month I go through the new research, fund disclosures and regulator moves on AI in investing, and tell you what changed, what did not, and what to ask your managers. One memo and one live hour, for allocators and the investment professionals around them.
I advise sovereign wealth funds, pension funds and central banks on AI adoption and manager selection. I authored the SPEC framework for manager evaluation, published by the CFA Institute. My team publishes The State of AI Alpha and the AI Maturity Index.
Every month, get the cutting edge of AI in investing, with all noise removed.
Every edition works one manager pitch through the same four steps. The September case is a sentence allocators hear every week:
“Our AI research process cuts analyst time by 70%, delivers a backtested Sharpe ratio of 1.8, and runs on a leading frontier model.”
Split the sentence. It makes three claims, and each needs a different proof. The time saving is an efficiency claim. The Sharpe ratio is an alpha claim. The frontier model is a supplier claim: any competitor can rent the same model this week.
Place the alpha claim on the evidence ladder. From weakest to strongest: an in-sample backtest, an out-of-sample test, a test after the model’s training cutoff, a paper portfolio, live capital, and live capital through more than one market regime. “Backtested” is the bottom rung.
Apply the month’s evidence. A Sharpe ratio means little until you know how many strategies were tried to find it. In a study covered in the September edition, a Sharpe of 1.69 in design fell to 0.18 on data the search had not seen.
Reach the verdict and the question. A possible efficiency gain; alpha not established. The question to ask: “Show me the same pipeline with the AI component removed or replaced, and tell me how you kept the backtest from using information the model could not have had at the time.”
“A study by Milos Maricic, founder of the AI advisory firm Maximand, went looking for it in a sector where the productivity story should be easy to prove.”
The content is the same in every plan.
The same method applied to one manager is a SPEC Read, from $5,000.
Cancel any time.
Twelve months for the price of ten, billed once.
Three named readers at one firm, one payment.
Invoice first, or a procurement form? Write to [email protected].
Join as a team →If your first 30 days do not leave you better prepared for your next AI investment conversation, write to me and I refund your first payment in full. No conditions, monthly or annual.
17:00 Singapore and Hong Kong · 18:00 Tokyo · 10:00 Geneva · 09:00 London
10:00 New York · 07:00 San Francisco · 14:00 London · 15:00 Geneva
17:00 Singapore and Hong Kong · 18:00 Tokyo · 10:00 Geneva · 09:00 London
09:00 New York · 06:00 San Francisco · 14:00 London · 15:00 Geneva
Enter your work email to read the September edition: all four pages, on the next page and as a PDF.
Opens on the next page, with the PDF. I may write to you about the briefing; reply “stop” and I won’t write again.
No. The briefing is research and education on how to evaluate claims about AI in investment management. It does not recommend buying, selling or holding any security, fund or strategy, does not rate or recommend any manager, and does not take account of anyone’s objectives or circumstances. Nothing in it is an offer or a solicitation.
Not in the briefing, and I do not answer questions about named managers there. Assessing a single manager’s claim is a separate engagement, a SPEC Read, from $5,000.
About two hours a month: twenty to thirty minutes for the memo and an hour for the live briefing, with a recording if you miss it. In a busy month, page one alone takes ten minutes.
Written for investment professionals, not data scientists. Every technical term is defined where it first appears.
You may circulate the One-Page Verdict inside your own firm, with its date and attribution. The full memo, the recordings and question submission are for named members.
No one. Attendees join view-only and cannot see each other. Only I am recorded, and questions are answered without names.
At link.com or from the link in any receipt, at any time. If you checked out as a guest, Link asks you to create an account first. You can also write to [email protected]. Access runs to the end of the period you paid for.
LINK.COM* MILOS MARICI (the name is cut short). Link is Stripe’s checkout, which sells the subscription on my behalf.
After paying you land on your members’ page; bookmark it. If you lose it, write to [email protected] and I will resend it.
Link, Stripe’s checkout, emails you a receipt and an invoice with every payment. If your firm needs an invoice before paying, write to [email protected].
No. Membership buys research and education. It never changes an AIMI reading or a SPEC verdict.
