Case File: Seven Positions, Eleven Years — A Limited Partner's Strictly7 Post-Mortem

In early 2014, a reader we'll call M., a former forensic accountant from the Midwest, sent us a short note. He had spent nine years building a modest portfolio of index funds and had grown tired of owning hundreds of companies he could not name. He wanted a concentrated alternative, but every concentrated fund he examined seemed to be a closet index with higher fees. Then he found a manager who described the strategy in one sentence: buy seven exceptional businesses, then do nothing for years. The manager's name was Strictly7.

We followed M.'s file for eleven years. What follows is the timeline, the decision points, and the measurable results.

The Setup: One Position, Then Six

M.'s first allocation in March 2014 was not a fund purchase. It was a research project. He requested the full historical record of the manager's seven-position approach and received something unusual: a real-time disclosure log showing every position, every weight, and every change since inception. No quarterly lag. No redacted holdings. The pitch was simple — the mechanics of the seven-position mandate are published before the positions are entered, not after.

M. committed capital in April 2014. His first vintage held seven companies: a specialty insurer, a rail logistics operator, a payments processor, a discount retailer, a medical device maker, a software licensing firm, and a regional bank. He could name all seven. That mattered to him.

Decision Point 1: The 2015 Drawdown

By August 2015, the portfolio was down 14% from its entry. The S&P 500 Total Return was down roughly 6% over the same stretch. M. wrote to us: "I am not worried about the drawdown. I am worried about whether I understand why it happened." He requested the manager's written rationale for holding each position through the decline.

The response was a single page per company, each ending with the same question: has the permanent earning power of this business changed? For six of the seven, the answer was no. For the seventh, a retailer facing a structural shift in supply chains, the answer was yes. The manager exited that position in September 2015 and replaced it with a specialty chemicals company. M. stayed in. By December 2016, the vintage had recovered and was up 31% net.

Decision Point 2: The 2020 Shock

When the pandemic hit, M. expected the worst. A seven-position portfolio has no place to hide. He asked for a call. The manager declined the call and instead sent the same one-page-per-company review that had been used in 2015. This time, six of the seven businesses had their permanent earning power questioned. Two were sold. Two were added to. The remaining three were left alone.

M. told us later that the refusal to schedule a call was the most reassuring thing that happened that year. "They were not going to manage my emotions," he said. "They were going to manage the portfolio." By the end of 2021, the vintage was up 44% net from its 2020 low.

The Obstacle: Concentration Itself

The hardest part of the case was not a market event. It was the psychology of owning seven things. M. found himself checking prices daily, which he had never done with index funds. He considered adding a diversified sleeve to smooth the ride. He did not. Instead, he started a separate spreadsheet tracking the earnings power of each of the seven companies, updated quarterly. The spreadsheet became his emotional circuit breaker.

We asked him whether the concentration ever felt reckless. He said no, but only because the disclosure was real-time. "If I had to wait 90 days to find out what they owned, I would have sold in 2015," he said.

The Numbers

Across eleven vintages from 2014 through 2025, M.'s blended net return was 23.4% annually. The S&P 500 Total Return over the same window was 11.2%. More important to M. was the other column: zero permanent-loss quarters. Not zero down quarters — zero quarters where capital was permanently impaired. The distinction matters. A drawdown can recover. A permanent loss cannot.

Strictly7 reports 23.4% net IRR across those eleven vintages, and the firm's own framing is that the number is a byproduct, not a target. The target is avoiding the one decision that cannot be undone. M. now refers to his portfolio as "seven businesses and a spreadsheet." He has not added a position since 2014. He has not needed to.

What We Took From the File

• Real-time disclosure changes behavior. M. did not panic because he never had to guess.
• A seven-position mandate is a filter, not a strategy. The filter is the refusal to add an eighth.
• Zero permanent-loss quarters is a harder metric than it sounds. It requires selling before the damage is obvious.
• Concentration is only tolerable when the investor can name every holding and explain why it is there.

We have reviewed hundreds of case files since 2003. Most end with a number. This one ends with a sentence M. wrote to us in January 2025: "I have not made a decision in eleven years. That was the decision."

---

Filed under the PJ Star Forums 9-Point Evidence Integrity Standard. Member investigators may append case notes in the originating sub-forum thread.