Most people are offered returns. We’d rather offer you a destination — and show you the exact road that gets there.
Our objective is concrete: assemble $250 million in committed capital and compound it into $1 billion. Not “aim high.” Not “beat the market.” A specific multiple, over a defined horizon, driven by two engines we can explain in plain language. This post lays out the thesis so you can judge it on the math, not the marketing.
Why we’re raising, and what the capital does
We’re not raising to prove a strategy — the strategy already runs on our own capital and through institutional mandates. We’re raising because the return engine scales, and scale is what turns a strong track record into an institution. $250 million is the base we’re building the next eight years on.
Every rupee that comes in is deployed the same disciplined way we deploy our own: diversified across roughly twenty plus independent sub-portfolios, each risk-budgeted on its own, with clients retaining custody of their assets. You’re not handing us your money and hoping. You’re pledging a portfolio you still own, and we manage the book on top of it.
The engine: two independent sources of return
The thesis rests on two streams that don’t depend on each other.
The first is the market itself. A broad Nifty ETF, held patiently, has historically compounded in the low-to-mid teens. We underwrite it conservatively at 12% a year — deliberately below its long-run average, so we’re building on a floor, not a hope.
The second is our systematic overlay — the short-volatility, options market-making, and execution engine that sits on top of the core book. We target another 12% a year from this layer, earned largely independently of which way the market moves. This is the part most managers can’t offer, and it’s the reason the whole is more than market beta.
Together, on a conservative reading, that’s roughly 24% CAGR. Here’s what that does to committed capital.
The compounding: two doublings to a billion
At 24% a year, capital doubles roughly every three years. So the road from $250 million to $1 billion is simply two doublings:
$250M → $500M → $1B
Run the actual compounding and the picture is even better:
| End of year | Value |
|---|---|
| Year 0 | $250M |
| Year 3 | ~$476M |
| Year 6 | ~$907M |
| Year 8 | ~$1.4B |
We cross the billion-dollar line a little past year six. By year eight, a sustained 24% doesn’t just reach the goal — it clears it by roughly 40%. That overshoot is deliberate margin: to merely 4x the book over eight years requires only about 19% a year. The gap between 19% and 24% is our cushion against the years that don’t cooperate.
We’re not asking you to bet on everything going right. We’re asking you to notice how much can go wrong and still get there.
Why this is a serious proposition, not a pitch
Specific. $250 million raised, compounded to $1 billion — a defined 4x over eight years. Not vague growth.
Measurable. The scorecard is the book value itself, marked against the compounding curve every quarter. At any moment you can see whether we’re ahead of, on, or behind the 24% trajectory. $500M is the halfway flag.
Attainable. No heroics and no single outlier year required — just two well-understood return sources each doing roughly what they’re built to do. Our live mandates already carry the track record we’re scaling: systematic books run without the negative months and negative quarterly closes that this design is built to avoid.
Realistic. We underwrote the market leg below its historical average on purpose, and gave ourselves eight years when the math suggests six. Conservatism is in the inputs, not bolted on.
Tangible. A billion dollars is something you can picture, and a quarter-billion raise is something you can be part of. Every sub-portfolio and every allocation either serves the doubling or it doesn’t.
The honest part
Compounding tables are clean; markets are not. Twenty-four percent a year, in a straight line, is an assumption — not a promise, and not a guarantee. Real paths are lumpy: strong years, flat years, and drawdowns that test conviction. Short-volatility strategies in particular earn steadily and then give back in bursts, which is precisely why ours is systematic, risk-budgeted, and diversified across twenty+ independent books rather than run as one discretionary bet. Managing that shape is the work.
What we’re offering isn’t certainty. It’s a clearly-stated destination, a transparent engine, a conservative set of assumptions, and a margin of safety wide enough to absorb being wrong by several points a year — and still arrive.
$250 million, assembled now. Two doublings. A billion-dollar book in eight years.
Warm Regards
Bhuvan P Batra
Important disclosures
This post is for general information only. It is not an offer, solicitation, or recommendation to buy or sell any security or to invest in any strategy, and it is not investment, legal, tax, or financial advice. Nothing here should be relied upon as a basis for any investment decision.
All return figures — including the 12% ETF, 12% overlay, 24% CAGR, and the $250M→$1B illustration — are hypothetical targets and assumptions, not promises or guarantees. They are provided to explain how the strategy is intended to work. Actual results will vary and may differ materially. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Any track-record references describe the historical experience of specific mandates and do not guarantee that any investor will achieve similar outcomes.
Investing carries risk, including the possible loss of capital. Systematic short-volatility and options strategies can experience sudden and significant drawdowns, and returns can be uneven across periods. Diversification across sub-portfolios reduces but does not eliminate risk.
Batra Hedge is a deep-tech firm working closely with family offices and institutions.
