A port of ai-hedge-fund's deep-value pod: Graham, Buffett and Munger read the same point-in-time fundamentals independently, and one reconciliation weighs their convictions. Graham's view counts double, as the source's own strategy file specifies.
aumos/ai-hedge-fund-value@0.2.4 · MIT
In the author's own words. This list is the whole permission surface — after the install screen nobody is asked again, and nothing outside it happens.
| Capability | The author's reason |
|---|---|
source:passthrough | Filings and price history, asked of the vendors this machine holds credentials for. Each persona reads the vendor’s own response; nothing is mapped on the way. |
portfolio:read | The book as it stood, so a conviction about a business becomes a judgement about this portfolio rather than a rating in the abstract. |
This package's methodology is ported. Porting a prompt makes a derivative work, so the attribution is part of what the package is — it is on the manifest, it is shown before anyone agrees to install it, and the original notice ships inside the package directory.
| Source | https://github.com/virattt/ai-hedge-fund |
|---|---|
| Commit | 69e5946dcb7b5fbe739b516455d1b5392cb5f7ac |
| Licence | MIT, © Virat Singh |
This ManagerPackage is a derivative work. Its three analyst personas are ported from the deep-value strategy of virattt/ai-hedge-fund, at commit 69e5946dcb7b5fbe739b516455d1b5392cb5f7ac, and the notice below is retained as that project's licence requires.
prompt/10-graham.md, prompt/20-buffett.md and prompt/30-munger.md adapt the system prompts in hedge_fund/signals/graham.py, buffett.py and munger.py. What was changed and why is in README.md §"What was adapted, and why each change was necessary"; what was deliberately not ported is in harness.json's omitted[].
MIT License
Copyright (c) 2024 Virat Singh
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Carried across from the source's own VISION.md, because it is a statement about the thing being ported and it does not become less true for having been ported:
The investor managers are stylized approximations of these investors' public philosophies — not the actual individuals, and not endorsements.
Benjamin Graham, Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger have no connection to this package, to ai-hedge-fund, or to Aumos, and none of them has reviewed or endorsed anything here. The names identify a published investment philosophy being applied, in the way a textbook names a method after the person who wrote it down. Nothing this package produces is that person's opinion.
<sub><a href="README.ko.md">한국어</a></sub>
Three famous value investors read the same filings, on their own, and one arbiter weighs what they concluded into a single judgement.
This package is a port — the methodology is not ours. Three analyst personas were lifted out of virattt/ai-hedge-fund (MIT, © 2024 Virat Singh) and reassembled to run on Aumos. Each one reads the same set of filed company figures without seeing the other two's answers, forms a view, and states how strongly it holds it. A final stage averages those views — Graham's counts double, which is the source's own setting and not a preference of this port — checks the result against your own rules, and hands back one judgement. Its usual answer is WATCH, on a price that would create a margin of safety.
basic-investor | prudent-allocator | ai-hedge-fund-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| origin | ours | ours | ported, MIT |
| starts from | the asset | the book | the filings |
| reads | filings, news, prices, the book | the book, prices, the theses | filings and prices only |
| readers | one | one | three, independent |
| its usual answer | WAIT, or BUY with a thesis | WAIT, or RESIZE | WATCH, on a price that would create a margin of safety |
Deep value, by committee — but a committee that does not confer.
Words this page uses, in plain terms:
| Margin of safety | buying far enough below what a business is worth that being somewhat wrong still leaves you whole |
| Moat | a durable reason competitors cannot take the profits away |
| Conviction | how strongly an analyst holds a view, as a number between -1 and +1 |
| Abstain | "I have no opinion" — which is not the same as "my opinion is neutral", and is scored differently |
| Point-in-time | only the figures that had actually been published at the moment being judged |
The independence is the whole methodology. Three analysts who converge because the third read the first two are one analyst with extra steps, and the blend would then be weighing a view against its own echo. The stage files say so out loud, twice.
It is given no news access and no access to your theses, and that is the port being faithful rather than the port being lazy. The source hands its value analysts a rendered fundamentals snapshot and nothing else; a port that quietly added a news feed would be an improvement filed under somebody else's name. Where that costs the judgement something, the manager is required to say so in its stated uncertainty.
Not a list of liberties taken. Each of these is something that could not be carried across, and the Aumos rule that made it impossible.
| the source does | this package does | because | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
sizes cross-sectionally: conviction / Σ\ | convictions\ | × gross_target | conviction × your maximum position weight | Aumos asks about one subject at a time. Divide one conviction by its own absolute value and the answer is 1.0 for any conviction, so a barely-positive view and an overwhelming one size identically. The source names this exact wart itself |
| clamps a target above the cap, silently | proposes inside the mandate, or explains that the mandate stopped it | Aumos does not clamp — it records the proposal verbatim and rules it a WAIT. A target over the cap costs the whole judgement, not some exposure | ||
| an all-neutral cycle produces zero weights and the fund closes to flat | returns WAIT or WATCH with reasons | closing to flat is a trade, and one nobody decided to make. WAIT is a first-class judgement here | ||
| shorts its least-liked names in market-neutral mode | drops the short side and says so | shorting is a mandate constraint and is normally off. Approximating a short with a hedge would be inventing an instruction | ||
| states the point-in-time discipline as a prompt rule the model is asked to keep | states it as a description of machinery | Aumos enforces asOf and refuses a result stamped after it. A prompt that asks a manager not to look ahead produces a manager that tries | ||
| has no minimum-conviction floor (its own docstring calls this the obvious next knob) | convictionFloor, default 0.2 | upstream, the risk stage caught the consequence by clamping. With no clamp, the floor stops being an improvement and becomes a requirement | ||
| places its own orders | cannot | there is no broker-write capability in the protocol to ask for. Orders reach a venue through your approval and nowhere else |
What is not ported is as deliberate: eleven nodes of the source harness are recorded in harness.json as omitted, each with the reason and with what in Aumos answers the same question instead — or nothing, where the port simply loses the capability. A node declined and a node missed are opposite facts, and a reader is entitled to tell them apart.
One run, one proposal. Nothing below places an order.
flowchart TB
classDef reads fill:#1e2a44,stroke:#6f9bf0,color:#cfe0ff
classDef judges fill:#2f2f38,stroke:#9aa0b4,color:#e8eaf2
classDef proposes fill:#1b4332,stroke:#40916c,color:#d8f3dc
classDef person fill:#5c4813,stroke:#f6a609,color:#ffe8b0
WAKE["Aumos wakes it on an asset<br/>or event review"]:::reads
subgraph IN["What it reads"]
direction TB
FIL["Filings — the figures published<br/>as at the moment being judged"]:::reads
PX["Price history"]:::reads
BOOK["Your portfolio as it stands"]:::reads
end
subgraph PANEL["Three readers, none of whom sees the others"]
direction TB
G["Graham<br/>margin of safety, balance sheet"]:::judges
B["Buffett<br/>moat, capital allocation, ten years"]:::judges
M["Munger<br/>invert; mostly the too-hard pile"]:::judges
end
BLEND["The blend<br/>weighted mean over the analysts who voted<br/>Graham counts double · abstentions removed<br/>from both halves"]:::judges
FLOOR{"Is the blended conviction<br/>above the floor, and are at least<br/>two analysts on the same side?"}:::judges
SIZE["Conviction × your maximum position weight"]:::judges
MAN{"Does that target sit<br/>inside your Mandate?"}:::judges
WAITW["WAIT or WATCH<br/>with the price that would change the answer"]:::proposes
BUY["BUY / RESIZE<br/>at a target inside the mandate"]:::proposes
subgraph HUMAN["Where a person decides"]
direction TB
MAND["Aumos judges it against your Mandate"]:::person
YOU["You approve, or you do not"]:::person
ORD["Only then does an order exist"]:::person
end
WAKE --> IN
IN --> G
IN --> B
IN --> M
G --> BLEND
B --> BLEND
M --> BLEND
BLEND --> FLOOR
FLOOR -- no --> WAITW
FLOOR -- yes --> SIZE --> MAN
MAN -- no --> WAITW
MAN -- yes --> BUY
WAITW --> MAND
BUY --> MAND
MAND --> YOU --> ORDLegend — 🟦 what it reads · ⬜ what it works out on its own · 🟩 what it hands back · 🟧 where a person decides.
Cadence. It is woken by an asset or event review rather than by a calendar, and the WATCH it most often returns names the price that would change its answer.
| Markets | US-listed equities and ETFs (XNAS, XNYS) |
| Data | source:passthrough — filings and price history, asked of the vendors this machine holds credentials for. Each persona reads the vendor's own response; nothing is mapped on the way |
| The book | portfolio:read — so a conviction about a business becomes a judgement about this portfolio rather than a rating in the abstract |
| Settings | the three analyst blend weights (the source's own defaults), the conviction floor, and whether a majority is required. Position caps are not here — they are your Mandate, and letting a package set them would let it argue with the constraint it is judged against |
| What it will not read | no news, and no access to your theses. That is the port being faithful to a source that reads neither |
| Your approval | it proposes and never trades. Every judgement enters your approval queue and a person approves it |
Installing it is exactly like any other package — from the catalogue, against a book, with the same capability consent screen. The install screen shows this package's provenance above its capabilities, because who wrote the methodology is something you are entitled to know before you agree to run it.
Do not install this if you want new ideas quickly, or a manager that will argue a company's story rather than its balance sheet.
The first shadow run. Fixture data, asOf five minutes before an NVDA earnings release. Outcome: a sealed WATCH, four tool calls all allowed, hash chain valid. What makes it evidence that the port works rather than that a model works:
Graham bearish on price alone, Buffett abstained for want of any balance-sheet or returns data, Munger neutral on the too-hard pile — blended conviction -0.43 over the two who voted. That clears the 0.20 floor, but only one voting analyst sits on either side of zero, so the majority requirement fires and the desk does not move the existing 5% position. […] The single most important fact here is timing: fiscal Q1 is reported five minutes afterasOfand this judgement is made without it. · Arithmetic:(2.0 × -0.65 + 1.0 × 0.00) / (2.0 + 1.0) = -1.30 / 3.0 = -0.43. Buffett is excluded from both numerator and denominator.
Four things in that are the port rather than the model:
-0.065, and then not proposed, because shorting is off. The source would have shorted here.Everything the run saw is filed as evidence stamped at asOf, so the claim is checkable rather than taken on the transcript's word. That is one run against fixture data, and it says nothing about whether this manager invests well.
Attribution. NOTICE.md carries the retained MIT notice and the personas-are-not-the-people statement; harness.json records what was taken, what was authored here, and what was deliberately left behind, and npm run check:provenance holds the two to each other.
Aumos shows no returns for this package until it has earned some. A forward track record takes calendar time rather than compute, and nothing on this page is one.