Introducing Antigravity Investments: Free Investment Management for the EA Community


Antigravity Investments is an EA social enterprise with the charitable mission of substantially increasing funding for high impact causes by providing free, high quality financial advising and investment management services to the EA community through our own services and those of other EAs in finance. By increasing the investment returns of EA donors and organizations through the reduction of taxes and fees, donation of appreciated securities, and higher performing investment strategies we aim to increase the amount allocated to high impact causes by millions of dollars. With a 1% increase on a base annual return of 9% for $100 million, a gain that can easily be achieved by fee reduction/elimination, an additional $22.6 million for donations and other EA activities would be generated over a 10 year period factoring in compound interest. To put this number in context, nonprofits with $0-5 million budgets are typically charged 1.01% in annual asset management fees according to the 2014 Study on Nonprofit Investing. We also expect to create a sizable charitable impact by improving access to high quality investment management for donors, nonprofits, impact investors, and social enterprises in the broader charitable world, and by donating revenue generated from the division of Antigravity Investments dedicated to serving the general market.

Free Investment Management (Beta)

Our core offering is a free automated investing (robo-advising) service that automatically connects to and manages brokerage accounts at Interactive Brokers and Robinhood with no added cost on our side or the broker's side. Interactive Brokers supports over 190 countries around the world and Robinhood offers commission free investing to U.S. clients.

Investors have a range of beliefs on what entails effective investing. In response, our robo-advising service offers three categories of investing services (more information available on our EA offerings document and on our website):

  1. Passive: We offer preconfigured and custom passive investing portfolios with automated account rebalancing, dividend and cash transfer reinvestment, and tax loss harvesting for taxable accounts. Our research indicates that most publicly available passive portfolios beat those of the leading robo-advisor, Betterment, hence our use of a 60% Betterment portfolio as a benchmark for all strategies. We offer passive portfolios from Betterment, Morningstar, passive investing experts, and additional sources in addition to allowing clients to create their own passive portfolios.
  2. Allocative: Our allocative portfolios automatically change the allocations of buy-and-hold portfolios according to evidence-based methodologies analogous to those used by robo-advisors such as Betterment and Wealthfront. It appears that most robo-advisors have two problems with their allocation systems: (1) they change allocations rarely if at all, thus losing out on performance gains, and (2) their use of methodologies with poor performance in real world trading and human estimates for future asset performance significantly impair annual returns. Antigravity Investments' allocation algorithms substantially outperform the allocation systems used by all major robo-advisors and outperform equal weighted and mean-variance weighted portfolios in out-of-sample tests with a variety of input portfolios. We offer U.S. equities and global asset portfolios for use with our allocation algorithms and can design custom portfolios upon request.
  3. Systematic: Our systematic portfolios follow certain investment theses based on academic research and our rigorous testing and development process to provide high risk-adjusted returns which are generally less correlated with the general market and have lower drawdowns compared to other portfolios. All systematic algorithms are subject to extensive out-of-sample testing across different time periods using different asset classes if applicable.

We will be offering free access to our passive, allocative, and systematic investing strategies for the foreseeable future. By nature of being a technology-driven organization we can operate with minimal expenses if necessary and intend to continue operating on a long-term timeframe if we are providing sufficient value to people. Our service is in currently in "private beta" because we are adding more features to our web app and actively incorporating client feedback. While we will be adding more investment strategies in the future, our investment strategies are fully ready for use and we expect them to provide significant value to people in our current state of development. 

To sign up for free investment management, select "Effective Altruism" on our registration page under "Investor Type." Robo-advising is provided for free by default to EA organizations and for individuals actively involved in the EA community. We will be refining our application process as our beta continues and will reach out to people who sign up if necessary. Feel free to use the live chat app or contact form on our website (in addition to the comments section on this post) to ask us additional questions. We can be reached more readily via the messaging feature on our Facebook page.

Progress and Team

Antigravity Investments has been managing EA capital since December 2016 in Robinhood with positive results. We are now interested in scaling our services to provide more value to people and gain additional feedback to improve our offerings.

As part of our efforts to incorporate EAs in finance, an EA-directed hedge fund based in the U.K. has offered to provide free investment management services to registered charities in the EA community. They are a long/short fund, have an investment minimum of $100,000, and invest in highly liquid securities. Contact us for more information.

Antigravity Investments is primarily based in the Bay Area where founder Brendon Wong, a member of EA Berkeley, is located. Our team includes Ben Pence (EA Bay Area), Uri Katz (EA Israel), and Samuel Watts (EA London). Special thanks to Michael Sadowsky (EA Chicago) who helped develop our first algorithm and provide funding, Brian Tse (EA Hong Kong) who helped establish an international fund for us, several EAs in finance who are providing us with advice and feedback, Rethink Charity (.impact) which has provided support in launching the project, and EAs such as Aaron Thomas and Apoorv Sharma who have helped connect us with additional resources. Contact us if you are interesting in contributing or funding further development! 

Frequently Asked Questions

About Us

Is this EA Investments? What happened to EA Investments?

Because the name "EA Investments" might lead to potential confusion with "Effective Altruism Investments," a student group we are not affiliated with which does not provide investment management services to EAs, we have changed the name of our EA branch from "EA Investments" to "Antigravity Investments for EA" for the time being. Please feel free to give us name suggestions!

Can I trust Antigravity Investments?

Please refer to the "Progress and Team" section of this post. You can reach out to EAs we have worked with and local EA groups our team is affiliated with for additional information, or contact us directly with questions.


How does Antigravity Investments compare with Betterment and similar passive robo-advisors?

Our offerings document compares our passive, allocative, and systematic strategies against Betterment. Betterment fails to beat passive indexes such as a 60/40 portfolio as well as professionally designed passive portfolios. Therefore, in addition to more specialized portfolios we have created such as our Global Multi-Asset Portfolios, we offer passive portfolios from Morningstar, Bridgewater, Bogleheads, and additional sources which can be expected to perform similarly to or outperform Betterment and other passive robo-advisors which use similar portfolio construction techniques. Our allocative and systematic strategies have much higher performance than passive robo-advisors because they do not rely on a passive portfolio hindered by an ineffective, sporadically rebalanced allocation system. Aside from strategy outperformance and potential performance benefits from more frequent rebalancing, our offering is free, leading to increased net returns. We also offer free personalized assistance.

How does Antigravity Investments compare with Alpha Architect and similar active robo-advisors?

That's a great question! Alpha Architect is known as a research-based active robo-advisor and we greatly respect their research and transparency. Please refer to Alpha Architect's self-reported live performance information: they have 0.10%, 0.08%, and -0.26% performance for their balanced, moderate, and aggressive Robust Asset Allocation solutions respectively since those solutions were launched at the beginning of 2014. All of Alpha Architect's strategies are solidly underperforming their respective passive benchmarks and have essentially achieved a negative return over the last 3.5 years taking inflation into account. We can offer Alpha Architect's active strategies and their passive benchmarks for free, although their strategies are not featured in our offerings document at this time. Alpha Architect's poor live performance, high fees (0.74%–1.04% cumulative fees depending on the strategy, see fee breakdown here), and high account minimum ($100,000) are important factors to take into consideration. Active robo-advisors generally have unproven, potentially low performance and much higher fees. Antigravity Investments' internal development and live trading platform LIFT enables us to robustly test algorithm performance across time intervals and asset classes we have not optimized our algorithms over and we frequently have a live trading period before deploying algorithms to clients. Both of these measures help us ensure strategy performance in addition to our rigorous research and development process. LIFT allows us to develop and deploy algorithms quickly and at a much lower cost than competitors.

Investment Performance

Why does it seem like Antigravity Investments is doing active investing? Won't that underperform passive investing?

We offer passive investing services and do not necessarily discourage passive investing. Our passive and allocative portfolios can be considered passive strategies, and even our systematic strategies currently utilize low fee index ETFs, the hallmark of passive investing. We believe passive investing can be appropriate in certain situations which may involve taxable accounts and small account sizes. We will take this opportunity to provide a rare assessment of systematic/algorithmic strategies which are not well-known among most individuals and even professional investors.

Active investing traditionally refers to "a portfolio management strategy where the manager makes specific investments with the goal of outperforming an investment benchmark index." It is true that after fees, many active mutual fund stock managers underperform stock indexes such as the S&P 500 U.S. stock index (although the reasons are somewhat contentious). Please note that we do not offer active investing in the traditional sense. Instead, our allocative and systematic strategies can be likened to evidence-based expert systems that do not rely on human management (subject to biases, non-evidence-based decision making, and high hourly rates) to produce better results. This approach can be applied to outperforming a specific asset class as well as outperforming passive portfolios that encompass multiple asset classes. If you have doubts about whether or not a more "systematic" approach can outperform a market index, please note that:

  • Wealthfront, the second largest dedicated robo-advising company in the world, has started offering a systematic stock strategy called "PassivePlus" half a year after we started offering ours (we were technically the first robo-advisor to offer account-level systematic stock indexing) which uses evidence-based factors such as value, momentum, dividend yield, beta, and volatility to systematically construct a portfolio that aims to outperform a market index. Such evidence-based factors are known as "smart beta."
  • Betterment acknowledges the benefits of value investing and is still searching for ways to allow investors to benefit because they, unlike Wealthfront, do not offer "direct indexing" of stocks.
  • Tracking the S&P 500 is subject to several flaws that may impair performance. For instance, portfolios that do not utilize market-cap weighting like the S&P 500 and most major indexes do consistently outperform market-cap weighted portfolios in numerous studies across international markets. The price impact of additions and deletions to the index appears to cause an approximate 0.215% yearly performance deficit (approximately the same cost as paying for a robo-advisor, although most other robo-advisors utilize market-cap weighted index ETFs). Outperforming the S&P 500 index over longer timeframes appears to be possible by utilizing a different weighting methodology and by utilizing a less popular stock selection system.

Antigravity Investments' performance returns seem too good to be true, and past performance isn't necessarily indicative of future returns. What should my expectations be for future strategy performance?

Antigravity Investments sources its strategies from experts and high quality academic research. Our passive portfolios are generated from reputable sources such as Morningstar, Bridgewater, and the Chief Investment Officer of the Yale Endowment and should be expected to perform similarly to or better than other passive portfolios. As noted in our section about our passive investing strategies, our research has indicated Betterment underperforms most randomly selected passive portfolios, and that is why passive strategies appear to be outperforming Betterment in our offerings document and on our website. Our allocative strategies are based on evidence-based methodologies and have performed exceedingly well in different test cases with different assets being held whether those assets are stocks or a broad mix of assets. For example in our offerings document we compare "Global Asset Allocation" against an equal-weighted portfolio with the same assets. Our systematic strategies have performed well after they were created (our current strategies were created around 2015) and do not engage in speculative investments such as shorting stocks or betting on currency fluctuations. Because of this, while we believe there is the potential for underperformance compared to our passive and allocative strategies, we do not believe our systematic strategies will experience large, sudden declines. They typically have very low historical maximum drawdowns.

Investing Advice for EAs

Will you be offering general advice to EAs regarding investing? Do you currently have advice for EAs regarding investing?

We will likely release additional information/resources in the coming months. For now, we have several recommendations.

Personal finance and investing: Reddit's PersonalFinance Wiki offers great crowdsourced answers to common questions. The Bogleheads Wiki has fairly good advice (note that they are a strong passive investing advocate), and EAs have recommended Mr. Money Mustache. For investing advice, Investopedia has a good overview of investing, and Bogleheads has a practical introduction to asset allocation which is a core component of creating passive investing portfolios.

Savings and emergency funds: The U.S. SEC offers a compound interest and savings goal calculator which allows users to plug in constraints and expectations to forecast future savings. Betterment advises investing emergency funds.

Better passive investing returns: Paying attention to tax loss harvesting and asset location (this is different from asset allocation!) are great ways for passive investors to earn higher net returns.

Retirement: Aside from generating passive income from assets such as real estate and side businesses, the safe withdrawal rate is a good way to think about retirement and future funds. Mr. Money Mustache and Bogleheads both cover the safe withdrawal rate, which can be informative of how much is needed for retirement.

What are your recommendations for self-managed investments or competing investment management solutions?

Please note that we currently objectively recommend Antigravity Investments for most passive and active investment management needs due to the lack of fees, potential higher performance, and access to personalized advising. In this section we will assess alternatives to Antigravity Investments assuming investors do not wish to choose Antigravity Investments.

Passive Investing: Sticking to a passive portfolio, such as the ones listed on Bogleheads, can save 0.25% in management fees compared to Betterment and Wealthfront. We recommend that clients use a well-constructed passive portfolio if they want to dedicate some amount of time and continuing education to managing their own investments. Otherwise we recommend using unbiased online rankings such as those by Nerdwallet to select a passive robo-advisor. Wealthfront is more cost-effective than Betterment without account sizes under $2 million and seems to be expanding their investment offerings with their direct indexing and advanced direct indexing, so we recommend Wealthfront as a general option. See this comparison link for more information. Human financial advisors are generally very costly (average 1% annual fee) and do not seem to outperform robo-advisors especially after fees, so we do not recommend them in general.

Active Investing: There is a limited range of active robo-advisors out there and we were unable to find good comparison articles. We recommend Alpha Architect's DIY Financial Advisor book for clients that want to save fees and potentially achieve higher risk-adjusted returns with Alpha Architect's downside protection rules (please note that Antigravity Investments can automate all of Alpha Architect's offerings). We do not recommend Alpha Architect's robo-advising service for people looking for a robo-advisor because of the $100,000 minimum, high fees, and seemingly low performance using Alpha Architect's proprietary high fee ETFs. We tentatively recommend qplum as a potentially high performing active management solution, and Hedgeable for investors that want a diversified portfolio with automated downside protection. Generally speaking, downside protection appears to significantly reduce downside risk at the expense of performance during bull markets, leading to potentially higher risk-adjusted returns as calculated by metrics such as the Sharpe ratio.

EA Topics

Does Antigravity Investments need funding?

Yes! While we can continue to operate without funding we believe this is a high impact funding opportunity because we can scalably increase funding for EA causes and the charitable sector in large magnitudes at a low cost. Funding can increase the value we provide to EAs and the broader charitable community and increase our speed of growth and development. Please contact us if you are interested in funding us or can help connect us with potential funders.

I'd like to assess Antigravity Investments' charitable impact. What is the state of investment management in the charitable sector?

According to the 2014 Study on Nonprofit Investing, charities with budgets between $0-5 million pay a 1.01% management fee and hold 61.8% of funds in cash or short term investments and 38.2% in long-term investments. Long term investments have on average 36.5% in domestic stocks, 9.7% in international stocks, 30.9% in fixed income, 19.1% in cash, and 3.7% in real estate or commodities. Charities with budgets between $5-25 million pay fees averaging 0.81% and have 66.6% of assets in long-term investments with approximately 42.7% in domestic stocks, 12.8% in international stocks, 33.4% in fixed income, 3.5% in cash, and 7.7% in real estate, commodities, and hedge funds. Charities with budgets above $25 million pay 0.79% in management fees and have 70% of their portfolio in long term investments, with 33% in domestic stocks, 15.1% in international stocks, 35.9% in fixed income, 5% in cash, and 11% in hedge funds, private equity, and commodities. Nonprofit returns are almost always lower than benchmark performance comprised of indexes with similar allocations to nonprofit long-term investments with annual performance deficits ranging from -0.28% for a 40% stock portfolio to -6.76% for a 70% stock portfolio.

Antigravity Investments can offer substantially reduced fees for the charitable sector, higher performing strategies suitable for nonprofits' tax status, and expert financial advising, all of which can create an enormous impact at scale. As mentioned in our introduction a 1% increase on top of a base annual return of 9% for $100 million would lead to an additional $22.6 million in revenue being generated over a 10 year period. The EA community is growing rapidly, and with it, the amount of capital the EA community has access to. Solely offering better investment management to the EA community will have a very large charitable impact, in addition to our services for the charitable sector as a whole.

Comments (16)

Comment author: Telofy  (EA Profile) 05 August 2017 03:58:34PM 1 point [-]

Is there any way (any not prohibitively inefficient way) for me to use the service from Switzerland with my prospective Swiss Francs? Or for anyone outside the US for that matter? Thankies!

Comment author: Brendon_Wong 06 August 2017 01:57:50AM *  1 point [-]

Yes! Antigravity Investments is open to over 170 countries around the world through Interactive Brokers and additional brokers coming soon. We are one of the first global robo-advisors (servicing everywhere instead of a specific country or region). We also provide advising and semi-automated investment management to EAs to provide certain features while we expand international support, such as support for Ireland domiciled ETFs which may be more tax advantageous for European investors. Non-Swiss securities might require a different currency to purchase other than Francs, but Interactive Brokers does offer built in currency exchange at excellent rates.

Comment author: Telofy  (EA Profile) 07 August 2017 04:26:49AM 0 points [-]

Awesome! Does it make a difference with which Swiss bank I’ll have a bank account? Because I haven’t signed up for one yet.

Comment author: Brendon_Wong 08 August 2017 06:48:02PM *  1 point [-]

I don't think so, Interactive Brokers supports many different account funding options: https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/software/am/am/funding/depositingfunds.htm and all banks should support wire transfers. It's important to note that we will likely be supporting additional brokers in the next few months, including DriveWealth, which has lower fees than IB. This will be relevant if the account size is small, and IB will be better if the account size is large. Feel free to message us via our Facebook page or email brendon [at] antigravityinvestments [dot] com to share information so we can provide better recommendations.

Comment author: weeatquince  (EA Profile) 02 August 2017 10:42:39AM 1 point [-]

Can you say something on the risk of lots of EAs putting their funds in the same space with the same investment manager? Should the community not diversify.

Comment author: Brendon_Wong 03 August 2017 09:11:04AM *  0 points [-]

I assume your question is regarding the risk of everyone following the same investing strategy as opposed to having their funds custodied at a particular firm—our financial health has no impact on client funds because our partner SIPC-member brokerage firms will be holding the funds and not us. Regarding following the same investing strategy, that really depends on how EAs are already doing and what the alternative investment strategy is. Individual investors tend to underperform common benchmarks (https://www.umass.edu/preferen/You%20Must%20Read%20This/Barber-Odean%202011.pdf) but perhaps EA investors do better. I think that it is quite possible many EAs are currently suboptimally managing investments and that many EAs following an exceptionally well-designed strategy might produce better outcomes. If the majority of EAs are currently following a very basic strategy such as 100% stocks, then the community is vulnerable to stock market volatility and having many people follow a more diversified strategy will reduce overall risk. It might be better for everyone to diversify into different strategies, but having one trustworthy firm offer many strategies doesn't seem to be definitely worse than non-aligned firms offering strategies if the strategies are comparable.

Comment author: joshjacobson  (EA Profile) 11 July 2017 04:06:02AM 1 point [-]

What's the range for amounts of money that are most appropriate for you to manage?

Comment author: Brendon_Wong 11 July 2017 07:20:41AM *  2 points [-]

We don't really have a minimum, and this is made easier because automation allows us to easily scale across many client accounts. Robo-advisors have scaled with billions of dollars in ETFs so I'd say the theoretical maximum is fairly high. I'd say a good minimum is $1,000 for U.S. clients in order to generate a diversified portfolio and $10,000 for international clients because of Interactive Brokers' account minimum (only $3,000 for those under 25). We're actively exploring partnerships with additional brokers and looking into features such as fractional share investing. I believe that we're well suited to manage accounts that are in the tens of thousands to millions of dollars range. At that level all of the strategies we have can scale and for accounts with trading commissions, trading commissions become negligible.

Comment author: Sanjay 10 July 2017 04:13:49PM *  10 points [-]

Thanks for this post, I used to work for a strategy consultancy that specialised in this sort of area, so I'm quite interested in this.

You state your value-add comes from (a) reducing fees to zero (b) tax-efficiency (e.g. donations of appreciated securities) (c) higher-performing investment strategies

I'm interested to know whether Antigravity investments is really needed when EAs have the option of using the existing investment advice that's out there. In particular:

-- (a) you also ask if people are willing to fund you. Does this mean that an alternative model for you would be to charge your clients and then allow your funders to donate to high-impact charities? If so, doesn't that mean that the zero-cost element of your model isn't actually a big advantage after all? (not meaning to be critical, I just don't know enough about your funding model)

-- (b) is it fair to say that donations of appreciated securities is a well-known phenomenon in tax-efficient donating, and anyone getting any kind of half-decent advice would get this anyway?

-- (c) (I understand you provide no guarantees) How many years of past performance do you have? Would you agree that in general, if a fund manager of any non-passive sort (smart beta or outright active) has a strong first few years, it's much more likely to be luck than an underlying advantage?

Sorry if the questions sounds sceptical, I'm conscious that I don't understand all the details about how you work.

Comment author: DonyChristie 11 July 2017 08:12:32PM 1 point [-]

I'm interested to know whether Antigravity investments is really needed when EAs have the option of using the existing investment advice that's out there.

Trivial inconveniences.

Comment author: kbog  (EA Profile) 14 July 2017 11:18:20PM 1 point [-]

How is that relevant?

Comment author: rohinmshah  (EA Profile) 14 July 2017 05:30:26AM 2 points [-]

Is Antigravity Investments less of an inconvenience than Wealthfront or Betterment?

(I agree that roboadvisors are better than manual investing because they reduce trivial inconveniences, if that's what you were saying. But I think the major part of this question is why not be a for-profit roboadvisor and then donate the profits.)

Comment author: Brendon_Wong 14 July 2017 10:13:13PM *  0 points [-]

Other EAs in finance have noted trustworthy people and good evidence-based advice is hard to come by, there are EA specific considerations for investing, and quality people/firms often extract a lot of the value for themselves. This could make high quality EA financial advice and investment management a non-trivial inconvenience. Betterment and Wealthfront cover a fraction of financial services—basic passive investing—and while they're cheap, their performance is subpar, very much so compared to our passive and active strategies and passive strategies in general. High quality investment management is hard to get. For someone looking to donate appreciated securities with Betterment/Wealthfront they're probably out of luck.

Comment author: Brendon_Wong 10 July 2017 06:45:34PM 2 points [-]

Thanks for your comment, those are great questions!

A. In our current plan, profits should come from outside the EA community with our general market and nonprofit offerings, allowing us to provide investing services to EAs for free, so we are not decreasing funding for other high impact organizations. That's how the EA-directed hedge fund we are in contact with is offering their investing strategies for free to EAs as well; 100% of their revenue comes from charging non-charitable clients. The funding part was regarding funders that wanted to have a charitable impact by increasing our speed of growth and probability of success in our initial stages of development. We do not strictly require funding to get started as evidenced by the fact that we're already managing capital and providing EAs with advising services. The code we've written should continue to work with minimal maintenance for at least several years. Funding would certainly be helpful in covering expenses at first, such as access to better curated academic research. The best case scenario is that funding allows us to scale rapidly and significantly help the broader charitable sector as well as generate funds to donate, and the worst case is that the funding does not help with scalability that much and EAs get free investment management at a higher level of development (at the cost of missing other funding opportunities as you mentioned).

B. Automated advisors like Betterment and Wealthfront don't provide any sort of support when it comes to donating appreciated securities. A wealth manager charging high fees in exchange for personalized attention might be able to offer this service but that's probably not accessible for too many people. We are exploring the possibility of offering donor advised fund services with Rethink Charity and are in active talks with another nonprofit, and that could cleanly integrate with the donation of appreciated securities from our investment platform. We can build in features that select optimal securities to donate at any given time and report tax saving metrics to donors.

C. We have live trading performance since December 2016, and the length of time since strategy development depends on the strategy. For instance the Swensen portfolio has been around since 2005, whereas the more recent allocative and systematic strategies have roughly 2 years of performance since creation. I think that there is a greater possibility of luck playing a significant role with traditional human investment management whereas with rules-based investing strategies one can assess the strategy in much greater detail and accuracy (for instance by testing across international markets and timeframes if applicable) instead of purely assessing performance after inception.

Comment author: gustafsonja 10 July 2017 03:44:55PM 1 point [-]

Most of the performance graphs in the offerings document have 10 years of data or less, and none of them have more than 14. I'm concerned that this analysis is overfitting.

Comment author: Brendon_Wong 10 July 2017 07:07:25PM *  3 points [-]

The strategies presented in the document utilize low-fee index ETFs. Most ETFs were not around more than 10 years ago, and we decided on 2007 as a rough starting point for when to start backtests seeing as critical ETFs began to exist around that time. Our backtester also currently incorporates data from the last 15 years. That is why all of the performance graphs with the exception of one strategy have roughly 10.5 years of historical data.

I'm not sure if longer backtest periods substantially reduce the risk of overfitting, but developing and optimizing over a specific in-sample period and doing significant out-of-sample testing certainly helps, and that is part of our testing and development process. We have examined performance over longer timeframes with other tools, but exporting the data from third-party tools, merging backtest results made with mutual funds with backtest results made with ETFs, considering commissions, slippage, and unreliable data, transferring it to Excel and generating graphs, integrating it into the offerings document, and figuring out how to compare annual returns and other performance metrics with different backtest periods on the offerings document and website turned out to be quite a headache so I decided to delay displaying longer term backtests in a public facing format until we can much more easily generate graphs and performance metrics through the web app which is what we are currently working on.

There is also a segment in the FAQ titled "Antigravity Investments' performance returns seem too good to be true, and past performance isn't necessarily indicative of future returns. What should my expectations be for future strategy performance?" which briefly touches on strategy development.