The curated database of hedge funds that publish investor letters. Research by geography, strategy, and schools of thought.
| # | Fund | Strategy | Style | Geography | AUM | Latest Letter |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The manager argues that artificial intelligence is following Solow's Paradox, where massive capital investment fails to produce measurable productivity gains. Despite $2.5 trillion valuations for AI labs and $9.5 trillion for semiconductor suppliers, 95% of organizations report zero return on AI investments. The hyperscalers have accumulated over $2 trillion in off-balance sheet liabilities funding data center buildouts, while consuming all their cash flow and issuing debt to maintain dividends. Most critically, $1.2 trillion in AI-backed debt sits inside PE-owned life insurance companies with only 4% equity cushions, creating systemic risk identical to the 2008 housing crisis. The manager expects sequential failures starting with neoclouds, spreading to AI labs, then forcing hyperscalers to cut shareholder returns. Life insurance policy holders will demand redemptions, triggering runs and government intervention. Federal Reserve Chairman Warsh will repeat Greenspan's error of lowering rates based on false productivity assumptions, then be forced to print money to prevent systemic collapse. The manager recommends gold as the clearest safe haven.
The AI infrastructure buildout represents a massive debt-fueled bubble that will collapse and force Federal Reserve bailouts, making gold the optimal safe haven investment.
The manager expects the AI bubble to collapse in a sequence similar to the 2008 financial crisis. Neocloud companies will fail first as their debt becomes unsustainable, followed by AI labs reorganizing as productivity gains fail to materialize. Hyperscalers will survive but must cut dividends and buybacks to service debt while their market caps adjust downward to remove AI premiums. Life insurance companies will face runs, forcing government intervention to freeze policies and quasi-nationalize the industry. The Federal Reserve will have no choice but to engage in extraordinary money printing to prevent systemic collapse, despite Chairman Warsh's current optimistic rhetoric. Republicans will be blamed for the crisis, energizing radical socialists in the Democrat Party. PE titans will buy surviving assets at pennies on the dollar, further concentrating wealth. The manager views gold as the clearest and best safe haven for investors.
As of Aug 31, 2026
Daniel Oliver Jr. serves as Managing Member and primary portfolio manager, bringing extensive credentials including a J.D. from Columbia Law School and M.B.A. from INSEAD. He serves as President of the Committee for Monetary Research & Education and is currently writing a book on credit bubble history. Oliver regularly appears on financial media including Bloomberg and maintains active board positions with portfolio companies. His investment approach combines Austrian economic theory with hands-on corporate governance, taking significant positions exceeding 13% ownership in investee companies while serving on boards of directors.
Lead Portfolio Manager
High Conviction Bullish
Market Conviction
The manager demonstrates very high conviction through the depth and specificity of his analysis. The letter is 20 pages of detailed forensic examination of financial statements, debt structures, and historical parallels. He provides specific figures: $1.2 trillion in AI debt, $2 trillion in off-balance sheet liabilities, 29.7% S&P 500 concentration, 4% insurance equity cushions. The analysis traces the entire AI value chain from chips to labs to hyperscalers to neoclouds to PE firms to life insurers. The historical framework spanning from the gold standard through Greenspan to Warsh shows deep research. The declarative conclusion that gold is the best safe haven, combined with the systematic dismantling of AI productivity claims, reflects strong conviction. However, the letter does not name specific gold positions or sizing, which prevents a score above 0.85.
Growth Outlook
The manager presents a structurally bearish view of markets driven by unsustainable debt levels, private credit collapse, and geopolitical fracturing. While seeing opportunity in gold, the overall market outlook is cautious given systemic risks and inevitable monetary debasement.
Risk Appetite
The manager maintains selective long exposure focused on gold and Western hemisphere miners while avoiding energy-dependent or geopolitically risky jurisdictions. This represents a defensive but not entirely risk-off positioning with clear sector preferences.
Capital Deployment
While the letter does not provide explicit fund positioning data, the manager's recommendation is clearly defensive: move capital into gold as a safe haven. The entire analysis builds toward capital preservation rather than deployment into risk assets. The manager is not describing a wait-and-see monitoring posture but rather an active recommendation to seek protection. The absence of any discussion of attractive entry points, buying opportunities, or areas for deployment, combined with the explicit gold recommendation, indicates a strong de-risking bias. This scores -0.70 as it represents a clear recommendation to reduce risk exposure, though without specific cash level changes to score it at the maximum -1.00.
Forward Guidance
The manager expects to benefit from Fed money printing and gold's eventual recovery, but emphasizes selectivity in mining jurisdictions and waiting for market discrimination between energy-exposed versus advantaged producers. Deployment bias is cautious and selective.
Language Signal
The language throughout the letter is overwhelmingly bearish and risk-focused. Terms dominate such as: bubble (used 20+ times), collapse, failure, impaired, toxic debt, catastrophic, systemic risk, crisis, panic, bankruptcy, runs, bailout, malinvestment, and overvalued. The manager uses historical parallels to the Great Depression, 1873 railroad bubble, and 2008 financial crisis. Bullish language is almost entirely absent except when quoting others' mistaken optimism. The few positive mentions of AI utility are immediately followed by warnings about the confusion between utility and value. This represents one of the most bearish letters in tone and language.
Perceived Risk
Very high perceived risk with detailed discussion of systemic threats including private credit collapse, unsustainable debt levels, geopolitical fracturing, and energy supply disruptions. The manager explicitly warns of 'snowballing disaster' and 'catastrophic deficits' with specific risk scenarios outlined.
Opportunity Density
The manager sees extremely limited opportunities in the current environment. The only explicit opportunity mentioned is gold as a safe haven. The entire letter is devoted to explaining why the AI ecosystem, which represents nearly 30% of the S&P 500, is overvalued and headed for collapse. There is no discussion of attractive entry points, undervalued sectors, or areas of opportunity beyond the single gold recommendation. The manager characterizes the current environment as a bubble where malinvestment dominates and the Fed has set rates too low for too long. This represents one of the sparsest opportunity sets possible, with essentially one recommended asset class out of defensive necessity rather than opportunity abundance.
Time Horizon
The manager's time horizon is medium-term, focused on the inevitable collapse of the AI bubble but without specifying exact timing. He discusses the sequential nature of failures (neoclouds first, then AI labs, then hyperscalers, then insurers) which implies a multi-quarter to multi-year process. The historical parallels he draws (1920s bubble took a decade to build and collapse, internet bubble from 1995-2000) suggest he views this as a cycle that will play out over years rather than months. However, the urgency of the recommendation to move into gold, combined with specific catalysts like policy holder redemptions and neocloud debt maturities, suggests the timeline is measured in quarters to a few years rather than decades. The lack of specific timing predictions and the focus on structural rather than tactical factors places this at 0.45.
Top Conviction Themes
Key Catalysts
Every insight in this database connects to the original source. Read the actual thesis, see the actual concerns, and make your own call.
Buyside Digest has no business relationship, partnership, agency, sponsorship, endorsement, or affiliation with Myrmikan Research or any other manager whose content appears on the Service, except where expressly stated. We do not receive Manager Content directly from managers in most cases; content is collected from publicly available sources. Managers have not necessarily reviewed, approved, authorized, or endorsed our display of their content, our editorial commentary, our metadata extraction, or our classifications. Use of a manager’s name is for accurate attribution and identification purposes only, under principles of nominative fair use.
Buyside Digest does not independently verify the regulatory status, registrations, licensing, qualifications, credentials, or professional standing of managers whose content appears on the Service. We do not represent that managers are properly registered with applicable regulatory bodies, that their content complies with applicable securities laws, or that their performance representations are accurate. Inclusion of a manager in our database is based on the publicly available nature of their content, not on our verification of their regulatory status or content compliance. Users are responsible for conducting their own due diligence on any manager.
Performance data, returns, assets under management (“AUM”), and similar figures displayed on this page are sourced from publicly available manager communications (including investor letters), public filings, or other third-party sources. Buyside Digest does not independently verify performance figures, calculate returns, or audit manager-reported data. Such figures: May be selectively reported by the manager; May use non-standard calculation methodologies; May not reflect fees, expenses, taxes, or other costs; May be inconsistent across reporting periods; May be outdated. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Performance figures should not be relied upon for investment decisions without independent verification. Users should request audited performance data directly from the manager and conduct their own due diligence.
