Here is the compact tape, all press-reported rather than manager-disclosed; exact vehicles, share classes and net/gross bases were not established:
| Manager / reported vehicle | August | 2026 YTD |
|---|---|---|
| Freestone Grove | −4.4% | −5.3% |
| Holocene flagship | ~−2% | worse than −5% |
| Cinctive | flat | +4% |
| Woodline main hedge fund | not given | +2% |
| Woodline US equity long-only | not given | +13.5% |
The interesting comparison is Woodline’s internal dispersion. It does not show that the long-only team is “better”: the mandates have different beta, drawdown and capital objectives. It does suggest that this year’s costly component is not simply idea generation. Neutralization, short-book selection, factor crowding and the opportunity cost of hedging an AI-driven long book deserve separate attribution.
That distinction matters for both risk budgets and talent economics. If most alpha is arriving through longs exposed to the same dominant theme, a market-neutral mandate can look prudently diversified while repeatedly paying to remove the source of return. Conversely, letting the factor run turns “alpha” into a flattering name for a crowded exposure. The useful review is a decomposition by long alpha, short alpha, factor hedge and financing—not another ranking of logos. Underlying September 10 reporting