The Baupost Group, L.L.C. 13F holdings and portfolio analysis
Sign in to clone a new branch from the selected plan, then continue optimizing in the new branch.
Baseline
Analysis messagesPre-generated Q&A about this fund. Use as reference context for your own analysis.
Directly following the disclosed baseline exposes an investor to a highly concentrated portfolio with modest market beta but still meaningful drawdown risk. In the baseline artifact, the top 5 holdings account for 45.79% and the top 10 reach 75.81%, with QSR at 10.94%, AMZN at 9.71%, WTW at 8.85%, ELV at 8.82%, and UNP at 7.47%. Sector exposure is also concentrated in Consumer Discretionary at 24.28%, Industrials at 21.49%, and Financials at 17.72%. Performance metrics show annualized return of 6.32%, beta of 0.6, Sharpe of 0.53, and max drawdown of -28.79%, so the investor gets stock-specific concentration and reporting-lag risk without strong risk-adjusted outperformance.
The recent baseline periods show a recurring pattern of modest participation in good markets and lagging downside-adjusted payoff. The clearest weak periods were 2023-03-31, when the baseline returned 3.5% versus SPY at 7.9% for -4.4% excess, and 2023-09-30, when it returned 5.46% versus 10.11% for -4.65% excess. Another weak period was 2024-09-30 at -0.35% versus SPY 2.76%, or -3.11% excess. The stronger recent periods were 2025-06-30 with 4.41% versus 4.2% for +0.21% excess and 2025-09-30 with 4.89% versus 1.49% for +3.4% excess, but those gains came with turnover of 22.89 and 33.62 and did not offset the long-run negative alpha of -1.38 or max drawdown of -28.79%.
Before accepting the baseline, the next step is to inspect whether the concentration and lag risk are justified by the actual holdings and implementation costs. The baseline summary explicitly flags negative alpha, deep drawdown, and reporting-delay dependence. Users should review the top 10 concentration of 75.81%, the largest positions such as QSR 10.94%, AMZN 9.71%, WTW 8.85%, ELV 8.82%, and UNP 7.47%, and the fact that estimated total trading cost still reached 1.8665 across 512 trades. It is also important to inspect recent periods where baseline excess return was repeatedly negative despite 0.6 beta. If the holdings thesis is not compelling enough to justify that concentration and lag, the baseline is probably not the best default choice.