The worst tracked record on this site rests on 153 trades, not 10
The worst weighted return Tenachine tracks belongs to a manager with 153 disclosed trades, one of the largest samples on the whole leaderboard. Most of the other nine names on the same bottom-ten list are still profitable. Worst here does not mean losing.
Alex Roepers has the worst weighted return of the 81 super investors Tenachine tracks, negative 17.6 percent. That figure rests on 153 disclosed trades, one of the largest samples on the entire leaderboard, larger than all but two of the other names on the same bottom-ten list.
That is the opposite of the usual pattern this site keeps finding in extreme results. Tenachine's guide comparing two investor rankings shows AltaRock Partners' 100 percent win rate resting on 12 trades and Clifford Sosin's 121.9 percent weighted return resting on 10, both extreme numbers built on some of the thinnest samples tracked. Roepers' negative 17.6 percent is also an extreme number, the single worst on the site, but it is not thin. A losing streak spread across 153 trades is a different kind of claim than the same losing streak spread across ten.
Worst here does not mean losing
Only three names on the bottom-ten list actually show a negative weighted return: Roepers at negative 17.6 percent, Tom Bancroft at negative 5.7 percent on 20 trades, and Dennis Hong at negative 2.0 percent on 23 trades, the same Dennis Hong flagged in Tenachine's guide on conviction buys for three underwater positions. The other seven names on this same ranking, Seth Klarman at positive 2.1 percent, Bill Nygren at positive 2.8 percent, Michael Burry at positive 4.5 percent, Carl Icahn at positive 5.2 percent, Bill Miller at positive 6.1 percent, Mason Hawkins at positive 10.2 percent, and Francis Chou at positive 11.2 percent, are all still ahead. They rank at the bottom of 81 tracked investors, not below zero. "Worst tracked record" and "lost money" turn out to be two different claims, and this ranking answers only the first one.
Michael Burry's presence here is worth sitting with, because two other guides on this site already rank him near the opposite end of a different metric. Tenachine's guide on median IRR has Burry second of 76 tracked investors, at a median IRR of positive 18.3 percent. Tenachine's guide on 13F concentration shows the same 4.5 percent weighted return quoted here, next to that same 18.3 percent median IRR, as two numbers that can disagree this sharply for one manager. Burry sitting in the bottom ten by weighted return and the top two by median IRR at the same time is not a contradiction in the data. It is what happens when a manager's typical trade does well, 18.3 percent, while one outsized position, the LULU stake covered elsewhere on this site, drags the size-weighted total down to 4.5 percent.
What this ranking cannot see
Tenachine's own note on this ranking is direct about the limit: weak 13F-derived performance can reflect a strategy weighted toward shorts, derivatives, or non-US assets that this dataset does not see at all. A manager whose long equity book looks weak on paper could be running a hedged or short-heavy strategy elsewhere that a 13F, by design, never discloses. Tenachine's guide on what a 13F filing does not show makes the same point about Michael Burry's own long book, three stocks that say nothing about the short and put positions his public reputation was actually built on.
None of this is a verdict on any name here, and Tenachine's own framing treats this list as one data point rather than a signal to act on. Roepers' 153 trades make his negative 17.6 percent a more stable estimate of what his disclosed long book actually did than a ten-trade number would be, but a stable estimate of one slice of a manager's activity is still only one slice. Past performance does not predict future results, and the worst tracked record on this site is worth reading closely for exactly that reason, not for a reason to avoid the name.