Most Investors Don’t Lose Because They’re Wrong

Spend enough time studying the greatest investors of all time, and one thing becomes clear very quickly:

They don’t agree on how to manage risk.

Some of the most successful investors in history never used hard stop losses at all. They managed risk through position sizing, patience, and long-term conviction.

Others cut exposure aggressively the moment conditions changed.

Some relied on deep fundamental insight and time. Others leaned on structure and rules.

And yet, all of those approaches worked.

What doesn’t work is ambiguity.

Not in markets. Not in systems. And especially not when you’re writing to thousands of people who are making real financial decisions.

Different Roads, Same Destination

Warren Buffett has famously ignored short-term price volatility in favor of business quality and long-term compounding. Peter Lynch talked openly about enduring drawdowns in great companies while focusing on the story, not the ticker tape.

Stanley Druckenmiller, by contrast, has described cutting risk quickly when conditions shift, even if the long-term thesis still appears intact.

Those approaches look wildly different on the surface.

But they share one critical trait: clarity.

Each of these investors knows exactly what a price move means inside their own framework. There’s no confusion about whether a line was crossed, what that implies, or how risk is being handled.

That’s the standard I aim for here at Moonshot Minute.

Where the Confusion Came From

Yesterday, a subscriber wrote in with a fair and thoughtful question:

That message struck me because the question pointed to how I define risk within the Moonshot Minute framework, and I realized I was causing the confusion.

And that’s on me for not being clear.

The Moonshot Minute Portfolio (pictured below, with recommendations blurred) reflects the current state of each position based on price, volatility, and risk thresholds at the prior day’s market close.

It does not log or preserve every intraday or short-term breach once price has recovered.

In a few cases, prices dipped below newly adjusted stop levels and then rebounded. I did not issue sell alerts at the time because the broader thesis remained intact, and the moves appeared more like volatility than structural breakdowns.

When the portfolio updated later, the “stopped” condition no longer applied, so it no longer appeared.

To someone viewing the system without that context, it can feel like history changed.

It didn’t. But the definition wasn’t clear enough.

So I’m fixing that.

How Our Stops Actually Work

We use a volatility-based stop algorithm rather than a static percentage or an arbitrary line. A more volatile stock requires a higher stop-loss percentage, while a less volatile stock requires a lower one.

As a position rises, the stop automatically adjusts upward, accounting for both price movement and the asset's natural volatility. This is intentional because the goal is to preserve gains without suffocating winners.

When a position moves higher:

• The stop price automatically rises with it.

• The risk floor tightens.

• Capital protection increases.

This means it’s entirely possible for a position to be above its original entry price, yet temporarily below a newly raised stop level during a pullback.

It might seem contradictory, but it’s the trade-off of protecting gains dynamically.

What “Stopped” Means

From here on out, the definition of Stopped is explicit and documented.

Stopped means the position has breached our adjusted risk threshold based on price and volatility.

It is a risk signal, not an automatic sell.

When a position is marked Stopped, it tells you that:

• The trade has moved beyond the level we consider acceptable risk at that moment, and

• The position requires review and attention.

Any actual exit from a position will always be communicated separately through a clear, explicit sell alert.

All alerts are delivered via email and, if you’re on the text alert list, via text message. The portfolio reflects the current risk state, not a historical log of every short-term price movement.

To put it simply:

Stops define risk. Alerts define action.

This definition will now live permanently in the legend section of the official Moonshot Minute Portfolio, so there’s no ambiguity going forward.

One More Important Point

These recommendations are general guidance, not individualized advice.

That means:

If I do not personally issue a sell alert but a stop level is breached, and you feel it’s prudent to exit, you should absolutely do so.

Different people have different risk tolerances, time horizons, and position sizes. A level that signals “review” for one person may signal “exit” for another. Both can be valid.

The Moonshot framework is built around one core idea:

Protect capital. Preserve gains. Let winners breathe.

Dynamic stops help define where risk changes. They don’t replace judgment. And they don’t override communication.

If I believe a position should be exited, you’ll hear it directly from my team and me with a clear sell alert.

And if a stop level is briefly breached but price recovers and/or the thesis remains intact, the portfolio will continue to reflect the current reality.

The Bottom Line

There are many valid ways to manage risk. History proves that.

What isn’t acceptable, especially at the scale Moonshot Minute has achieved, is confusion about what a signal means.

So I’ve tightened the language, clarified the definitions, and we’ve aligned the system with how many professional investors actually think about risk in the real world.

I appreciate the subscribers who ask the hard questions. That feedback makes the system better for everyone, so please keep it coming. Even though I may not respond to everyone, I read every email that comes in.

And going forward, when you see Stopped in the portfolio, you’ll know exactly what it means and what it doesn’t.

Here’s to clarity and discipline.

Double D

🔓 Premium Content Begins Here 🔒