For Patrick Kent, successful investing is less about predicting the future with precision and more about building a process that can adapt when the future inevitably surprises you. As Portfolio Manager of the Hedgeye 130/30 Equity ETF (HELS), Kent combines fundamental research, Hedgeye’s macro framework and market signals to manage both sides of the portfolio — leaning into the strongest opportunities while using shorts to help protect capital when conditions deteriorate.
 
That philosophy has been shaped by more than 25 years as an analyst and portfolio manager. Along the way, Kent has watched passive investing reshape market structure, seen factor rotations punish crowded positioning and learned firsthand why conviction can become dangerous when it overwhelms risk management. In the conversation below, he explains how a 130/30 strategy can create additional upside while managing downside risk, why momentum can matter more than valuation, how he manages shorts when they move against him and why humility remains the most important trait a portfolio manager can bring to the job.

1. For readers unfamiliar with 130/30 — explain simply how the extra long and short leverage is supposed to add value versus a plain long-only fund.

A 130/30 structure gives us a wider toolkit than a traditional long-only fund, which can only express a negative view on a stock by simply not owning it. We build the short book from names screening poorly on signal strength with a negative analyst view, targeting structural underperformance versus the broad market. That short exposure does double duty. In a bearish trend or Quad 4 environment, it lowers net beta and cushions the portfolio against drawdowns the long book alone would have to absorb. In a bullish backdrop, the proceeds from those short sales aren't sitting idle; they get redeployed into additional long exposure, extending the portfolio up to 130% gross long against 30% short. The net effect: more torque on our best ideas when we're right, and a built-in shock absorber when the tape turns.

2. Looking back over your career, what market shift fundamentally changed the way you invest?

Over more than 25 years as an analyst and portfolio manager, the single biggest structural shift has been the passive takeover — index and rules-based strategies now account for more than half of AUM, and that reallocation has changed the market's plumbing, not just its ownership mix. Long/short hedge funds have grown more levered and more factor-neutral, quantitative and high-frequency strategies have multiplied, growth has taken sustained share from value, and index concentration has climbed to levels that make single-stock risk a market-wide risk. None of this is a footnote, it's the water we all swim in now. What it's taught me, going back to early in my career, is intellectual humility: acknowledging the limits of what I don't know, and building risk management into the process rather than bolting it on after the fact. Concretely, that means having explicit rules to identify and exit value traps before they compound, and the discipline to walk away from a growth name the moment its momentum breaks — rather than staying loyal to a thesis the market has already stopped paying for.

3. When you look at markets, what indicators or signals do you pay attention to before anything else?

Before anything else, I start top-down with three filters. First, the liquidity backdrop — is money supply growing or shrinking, accelerating or decelerating, because liquidity conditions set the tide that every asset floats or sinks on. Second, the Quad environment: where growth and inflation are likely headed, accelerating or decelerating, since that combination dictates which asset classes and factors should lead. Third, the volatility regime:  the same fundamental setup demands a different level of factor and position sizing depending on whether volatility is compressed or expanding. From the bottom up the real work is identifying where revenue and earnings are likely to inflect, which means spending time on year-over-year comparisons, for individual companies and the index in aggregate to catch acceleration or deceleration before it's fully priced in.

4. When a short position starts moving against you fast, what's your process for deciding whether to add, hold, or cut it?

Running a book of shorts is like juggling firecrackers, you keep the inventory moving so nothing blows up in your hands, and you have to be quick to drop one at the first sign of trouble. There are very few "fire and forget" shorts; the process is active by design. Counter-trend bounces within the existing risk range are opportunities to add to the short and to book partial profits on moves lower, treating the position tactically rather than as a static bet. The moment a name breaks to bullish TRADE, though, the calculus changes. In that scenario, we cut back to a minimal position or exit entirely, with the decision hinging on how large the starting position was and whether there's a concrete fundamental catalyst behind the move. If the break extends to bullish TREND, that's the line we don't argue with; the position gets cut, or a stop is set tight to the trend line itself, because at that point the market is telling you the thesis is likely at least temporarily broken.

5.  What is one market misconception you believe investors repeatedly fall for?

At the individual stock level, it's that valuation matters. It doesn't… until it does. Valuation is never the setup for a trade; it's only ever the punchline, the thing that explains a move in hindsight after growth, momentum, or sentiment has already done the work of getting a stock expensive or cheap. At the macro level, the misconception is the "free lunch" narrative around falling interest rates — the assumption that lower rates automatically mean stocks are worth more. There's truth to that in isolation, but it ignores why rates are falling in the first place. Over the long run, lower rates are the market's way of pricing in lower nominal growth. If you plug historical average growth rates into a valuation model while using today's depressed discount rate, you get a number that says pay up for stocks but you've quietly underwritten a bet that growth holds up even as the rate signal says it won't.

6. How often does the portfolio actually change, and what's the difference between a shift that's driven by genuine regime change in the macro data versus something you'd dismiss as short-term noise?

Position sizing changes daily, since every name in the book operates within a defined risk range and we're constantly adjusting exposure as prices move.  That part is mechanical, not a change of view, it is in response to statistical noise. The actual roster of names turns over in response to something signal: a shift in a stock's underlying trend, a change in the Quad environment that alters which factors and sectors should lead, or a revision in analyst conviction on the fundamentals.

7. What market conditions are hardest for a 130/30 strategy (e.g., violent short squeezes,high correlation across stocks)?

Elevated factor and sector rotation, with sharp swings in leadership, is genuinely one of the hardest environments to manage through in any long/short strategy, 130/30 included. The core problem is that rotation attacks both books at once. Your longs and shorts can be on the wrong side of the same move simultaneously if the rotation is fast and violent enough, which compresses the alpha spread the whole strategy depends on. For example, this year to the two best performing sectors are technology and energy. At different times throughout the year they have also been the worst, trading places at different points in the year. Whipsaws can be more dangerous than a bear market.

​

8. What's one mentality trait you believe every PM absolutely needs to have — something you'd consider non-negotiable regardless of asset class or strategy?

Humility. The clearest warning sign that a portfolio manager is heading into trouble is the moment they become convinced they can "see the board clearly." Conviction is almost always a signal, not that the thesis is right, but that the risk management has quietly stopped. The future is uncertain, full stop, and the value of any piece of information decays fast, what justified a position last month may already be stale. Humans are hardwired to build narratives out of noise, and that instinct isn't the problem; the problem is holding that narrative too tightly once the market starts contradicting it. The non-negotiable trait isn't being right, it is being humble enough to stay flexible, thinking in terms of a balance of risks rather than a fixed outcome, and beingwilling to let the story change before your P&L forces the issue. I can speak from experience here.

​

9. Do you have any rules you never break, regardless of how good an opportunity looks?

A few rules stay fixed regardless of how compelling the story looks. Avoid turnarounds in structurally challenged sectors, a cheap stock in a broken industry is still in a broken industry. Be wary of acquisitions of scope, where a company buys its way into an adjacent business it doesn't understand, but dig deeper into acquisitions of scale, which consolidate a company's existing strengths and are far more likely to actually work and deliver real synergies. Never anchor to valuation as a reason to keep owning something, it's one of the fastest ways to ride a value trap all the way down. And never hold a position with clear negative momentum.  If the market's telling you something the fundamentals haven't caught up to yet, the momentum is usually right first.

​

10. Twenty-five years in this business across Wellington, BNY Mellon, CR Intrinsic, and Hedgeye — if you ran into the version of yourself on day one, what's the one piece of advice you'd give him that would've saved you the most pain?

Be candid and curious about what you know and don't know, because candor and curiosity are the foundation of every good risk management decision you'll ever make. Fundamental research really breaks down into four buckets, in shifting proportions: what you know, what you don't know, what you don't know you don't know, and what you think you know that just ain't so. Most of the pain in this business comes from confusing the fourth category for the first. Aristotle had it right when he said it's the mark of a trained mind to never expect more precision from a subject than the subject itself allows, and investing is about as imprecise a science as they come. This industry pulls in competitive, high-achieving people who did well in structured environments with clear right answers. However, it rewards the opposite instinct, i.e. flexibility of thought over certainty of conclusion. We're forecasting probabilistic outcomes, not solving equations. Yogi Berra said it best: it's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. I've watched analysts spend countless hours building models around the idea that their point forecast is the deliverable, when the number itself is nearly meaningless. What actually matters is understanding how and why a revision happens, and how that shift gets perceived and repriced by other investors, human and machine alike.

​