Benchmarks — Fund A relative-return frame

TL;DR: Fund A's primary benchmark is ACWI with a +200 bps hurdle. Supporting benchmarks: S&P 500, NASDAQ-100, MSCI World Quality, CBOE BXM. The four supporting benchmarks each test a different claim of the Aloha Flywheel thesis. Status as of 2026-05-04: Defined in Fund A documentation.

Relations

DRIP-ON — the BXM comparison is where DRIP-ON's differentiation lives.
Iron Rules — concentration / leverage rules constrain how the benchmark is approached.
Aloha Flywheel — the operational loop being benchmarked.

Primary — ACWI + 200 bps

ACWI (MSCI All-Country World Index) is the broadest equity benchmark. The +200 bps hurdle is the relative-return claim Fund A is making to LPs: net-of-fees outperformance vs. ACWI of at least 2% per year over a rolling multi-year window. This is the headline pitch number.

Supporting — what each tests

S&P 500

"Are Fund A's US-concentrated long positions adding value above the simplest US-equity exposure?" The Ace tier (BRK.B / AAPL / MSFT / GOOGL / META / AMZN / NVDA) overlaps heavily with the S&P 500's top weights, so this benchmark is the harshest read on whether concentration + Iron-Rule discipline beats market-cap-weighted simplicity.

NASDAQ-100

"Are we adding value above tech-heavy passive?" Five of the seven Aces are in the Nasdaq-100. The comparison isolates whether Fund A's overlay (DRIP-ON, options, Iron Rules) earns its fee against a tech-tilted passive alternative.

MSCI World Quality

"Is the conviction concentration adding value above quality-factor passive?" The Quality factor systematically picks high-FCF, high-margin, low-leverage names — exactly the territory of Alpha Bets 27. Beating MWQ is what proves concentration matters beyond quality screening.

CBOE BXM (Buy-Write Index)

"Is DRIP-ON adding value above standard covered-call passive?" BXM is the canonical buy-write index — it sells at-the-money S&P calls monthly. The BXM gap is where the DRIP-ON ratchet does its work: BXM distributes its premium as income; DRIP-ON reinvests 100% into shares. The compounding gap shows up cleanly in this benchmark over time.

What the benchmark set is not

Not a hedge-fund benchmark (HFRI, etc.). Fund A is not pitching itself as a hedge fund; it is pitching itself as a concentrated long-only with options overlay.
Not a peer-group benchmark. The fund's structural disciplines (DRIP-ON, Iron Rules, T-Bill Float, permanent HWM) are unique enough that peer-group benchmarking would be misleading.
Not a target. The +200 bps is a hurdle; the operational target is share-count growth, not benchmark-relative return.

A note on framing

This page describes a framework. It is not, and is not intended to be, a solicitation, an offer, or LP-facing material.

Sources

Internal Hussh source note - benchmarks concept page synthesis and public wiki publication context.