He asked me a few questions — the kind I’d call typically French, if you ask me:
“How can you be credible if you’re advising people who’ve been through 10 years of business school? They study complex theories — you really think you can outsmart them with your little tricks?”
My answer?
In the world of stock investing, business schools should be called bullshit schools.
I just apply what Warren Buffett has applied his whole life — and guess what? It works.
All their “efficient market” theories are useless when you know how to read between the lines.
Then he asked:
“How are you helping people for free? Do you even have enough money to live?”
My reply:
Yeah, I’ve been saving for a zombie apocalypse. I’m good.
Then he said private equity beats stock investing.
So I said:
“Okay. Show me your data.”
He sent me a paper — you can check it below.
Watch it and try to guess what’s wrong… or just ask ChatGPT.
🧠 Here's the issue:
Cambridge Associates only includes funds that willingly share their results —
which usually means they’ve performed well.
The bad performers? They stay silent.
Also, Cambridge can remove funds from their historical sample once they close.
👉 Result: The average performance gets artificially boosted by excluding underperformers.
Cambridge Associates is primarily focused on Private Equity.
Even though they cover all asset classes, their core expertise lies in private markets.
And yes — they have every incentive to say private equity outperforms public markets.
That’s the product they’re selling.
Comparing the Cambridge PE Index to the S&P 500 is like:
A student’s report card graded by his parents…
vs. another student graded by a strict, anonymous panel.
Want to know how I find the kind of stocks that really move the needle — and beat Cambridge?
👉 Download my free checklist to spot high-potential stocks :