Why investors earn less than their investments — and what actually closes the gap.
Toby Limanto Co-founder
Budi Ryan Co-founder · Licensed Investment Advisor
Draft v1 — series title options under review · all performance & study figures marked illustrative must be verified before presenting.
1
The confession
Our returns are… meh.
What we earn
17–26% / year, gross
2022 (Aug–Dec)+6.2%
2023+26.2%
2024+25.3%
2025lost to IHSG that year+17.5%
2026 YTD+16.1%
Budi Ryan — licensed investment advisor. Real portfolio, audited by our own clients every day. And yes — in 2025 we made 17.5% and the index still beat us.
What the timeline promises
10× — 100×
Multibagger calls, "saham naik 100%", signal groups, crypto moonshots — loudest at the top of every bull market.
Next to that, our best year ever looks like a rounding error.
So why would we fly here to open with numbers that lose to every Instagram screenshot you've seen?
2
To be honest
Our returns aren't that important to you. (They are to us.)
What's important to you is your returns — and for anyone you follow, that means one number: what do the followers actually earn?
Not the guru. Not the fund. Not the account posting the screenshots. The people who followed.
3
This is measured, not anecdote
Same fund, two very different returns famous story — verify sourcing
Fidelity Magellan under Peter Lynch, 1977–1990
The fund compounded ≈29% a year for 13 years. Its average investor reportedly lost money. Same fund. Same years.
And to be clear: nobody here is on trial. Not the influencers showing off their returns, and not the retail investors following them — we're not calling anyone reckless or naive. This is a common phenomenon: Peter Lynch was honest and brilliant, and his investors got the gap anyway. It's structural, not moral — and it has a name in the literature: the behavior gap. (The Magellan telling is famous but imperfectly sourced — the audited studies above show the same pattern.)
4
So we grade ourselves on exactly that number
Our customers' returns — not ours published snapshot · 7 Aug 2026
All-time return by join quarter — every cohort, oldest to newest
Mean with ±1 SD envelope · indexed to each client's starting portfolio (neutral to top-ups) · hover any quarter. The best cohorts aren't the lucky ones — they're the oldest ones.
Clients in profit
98.7%
Every client currently below zero joined Feb '26 or later — still in their first drawdown.
2026 YTD — clients vs IHSG
+11.7%vs−26.6%
In 2025 we made 17.5% and still lost to IHSG's 22.1%. We tell you which years we lose — that's the point.
Behavior, not talk
2.21×
Average client has topped up to 2.21× their initial commitment. Trust, measured in transfers.
We are not claiming to be Buffett. Our claim is narrower: the gap between our returns and our customers' returns is small. Bridging that gap is the product. Source: the same public API as recompound.id/performance — this slide refreshes itself when online.
5
No cherry-picking
Every client, worst to best published percentiles · 7 Aug 2026
Cumulative distribution of all-time client returns
x = indexed return, y = share of clients at or below it · hover the curve. Same strategy for everyone; the spread comes from behavior: join date, execution delays, skipped recommendations.
Dispersion never comes from different strategies — every client gets the same one. It comes from what each human did with it. That dispersion is tonight's whole topic. Offline, this curve is anchored to the published percentiles; when online it redraws from the full per-client series.
6
How is that possible? Start with the mechanism you already know
Money arrives at the top, leaves at the bottom
One market cycle, with the crowd's money flows illustrative
Hover the markers. Same fund the whole way — the investor's return depends on when the money showed up.
Price▲ Money in▼ Money out
As entrepreneurs, you'd never run a business this way — buy inventory at peak COGS, liquidate at clearance prices. Nobody in this room needs "buy low, sell high" explained. So the real question of tonight: why does it keep happening — to smart people?
7
"But my returns are fine"
Which portfolio — the one you remember, or the one you have?
Mental accounting (Thaler, 1985; 1999): winners "count", unrealized losers "don't count until I sell — exit at breakeven." The one honest number is the money-weighted return across everything. Figures illustrative.
8
Not IQ. Not information.
Since this year, analysis is free. Behavior is still expensive.
To prove it, we'll do something unusual: we're giving you a prompt pack. Five prompts — understand a business, read its statements like a skeptic, estimate intrinsic value, design your own Investing 101 curriculum for your background, and write a thesis before you buy. Point Claude at IDX filings tonight. Free.
And we're still confident it won't fix your returns. There will always be a newer, smarter model promising a better framework — and the urge to switch to it is itself one of the forces we're about to name.
eoa-deck.recompound.id/prompts
No email wall. No catch. The catch is the next nine slides.
9
Why it keeps happening
The Unteachable Lessons
A whole category of lessons that can't really be transferred by talking — they only fully land through experience. We're going to share them anyway, because what a talk can give is the vocabulary: so when one of these moments arrives, you recognize it faster. It happened to us too — that's how we know the cycle:
you hear the lesson→you nod→"won't apply to me"→you experience it→you repeat it→you finally get it→you warn others→they nod…
We've paid this tuition ourselves, more than once. The way out is a choice each of us gets to make: learn it once — or pay again.
10
Six forces · hover any card
In the moment it feels like… / hindsight calls it…
Every force documented in peer-reviewed literature — citations on each card. None of this is a character flaw; all of it is human default settings. We'll tell you our own stories for each.
11
Force № 5 — why the 100× pitch works on everyone
Possibility sells. Probability confuses.
Two offers. Notice where your own eyes go on each — the cards are drawn the way your brain renders them. Hover both.
Offer A — a 0.1% shot at 100×
Rp 10 miliar
ticket: Rp 100 juta · odds: 0.1% — printed exactly as visibly as your brain prints them
tiny odds → you stare at the prize. The math never runs. · hover →
The math you never ran
Expected value: ≈Rp 10 juta back for the same Rp 100 juta. It was never an investment — it was a donation with a dream attached.
Measured in markets too: lottery-like stocks underperform — Kumar 2009; Bali et al. 2011
Offer B — 15% a year on Rp 100 juta
+Rp 15 juta this year
"that's the expected value… and it changes nothing about my life." — tab closed
meaningful odds → you run the math, shrug, and walk. · hover →
The prize you never saw
Rp 3.3 miliar. Real. Just 25 years away.
A prize you have to wait for doesn't feel like a prize at all — the next slide shows what that costs us
Same brain, opposite blind spots: tiny odds → we see only the prize; real odds → we see only the (unimpressive) expected value. Psychologists call the first half the possibility effect. The pitch is engineered for it — and it wins both ways. Only you need to be sober.
Kahneman & Tversky (1979); Tversky & Kahneman (1992) · Kumar (2009) "Who Gambles in the Stock Market?" · Bali, Cakici & Whitelaw (2011) "Maxing Out" · the full story: blog.recompound.id — "Everybody Is Doing Short-Term Stuff"
12
Force № 6 — the optical illusion you can't unsee
Tonight, everyone believes this chart. On Tuesday, everyone restarts it.
Right now you're thinking: "I'll let the power of compounding work for me." Then Tuesday, an investment wizard posts a new method on Instagram. We switch. The clock restarts. It happened to us too — more than once.
Rp 100 juta at the same 15%/yr — uninterrupted vs. restarted every time a new method drops
Hover any year. Same returns, same market, same person — the only difference is who let the clock run.
Never interruptedNew method every ~2 years
Twenty-five calendar years of investing — never past year two of the curve. Compounding doesn't reward believing in it; it rewards not interrupting it. Wagenaar & Sagaria (1975): people underestimate exponential growth even immediately after being taught it. Each switch assumes a modest ~15% cost (exit timing, fees, the new method's tuition) — change the assumption, the shape barely changes.
13
The synthesis lesson
"I'll build a bigger base first" — the trade-off nobody prices
Two founders, Rp 100 juta each illustrative
Hover the paths. The chaser's +60% years are real — so is the −90% that removes them from the game.
Steady 15%/yrChasing short-term returns
Survival isn't the conservative option — it's the aggressive option, because staying in the game is the only place the exponent gets to run. This is the lesson that answers the 100× promises we opened with.
14
What tonight was not
Notice what we didn't teach: how to read a balance sheet.
If you want investing 101 — ask Claude to design you a curriculum for your literacy level, tonight, free. That part of investing has been commoditized.
What hasn't been commoditized — what may never be — is behaving well while holding money. That's what this series is about.
15
The open loop → Part 2
"After describing these same forces, Howard Marks lists the handful of things that give an investor a fighting chance against them. Note the phrase. Not victory — a fighting chance."
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING — ch. "Combating Negative Influences" · verify exact quote against the book
Part 2: what a fighting chance actually looks like in practice — the systems, not the willpower. You already run your companies this way. Nobody applies it to their own portfolio.
16
Before Part 2 — pick one
Homework (private — you won't have to show anyone)
The 5-minute version
List every position you're "waiting for breakeven" on.
Just the list. Bring it. That list is Part 2's opening scene.
The full audit (volunteers)
Compute your true all-in, money-weighted return.
Every account, every position, including the ones that "don't count." We'll share a simple template.
One number doesn't lie. Everything else on your brokerage app is a mood.
17
What you walk away with tonight
The one honest number. The six forces, named. And proof the gap can be closed.
Part 2: engineering the fighting chance. Part 3: come see the kitchen.