Where is the most profitable expression, if we only say that the power law encompasses performance?
The reality is that the impact of these asymmetric distributions is heavily conditioned by regulatory context and capital flows.
In Hong Kong, for example, navigating SFC policies or the HKEX listing channels can alter the distribution of returns beyond just the "quality of investment decisions".
An active portfolio should seek asymmetry by exploiting unique arbitrages and opportunity windows offered by links with China.
Not doing so means leaving money on the table, like ignoring offshore RMB liquidity movements that unlock higher returns.

Moonfire's report is not just a specialization of a more general report, because this P&L logic fails in emerging markets.
The realization of gains depends on specific contexts; a general report based on mature markets does not account for Indian specifics, for example.
If a previous study focused on developed markets and the new one targets India, the risk and return dynamics are radically different due to capital flows and local regulations.
To realize profits, one must consider local market conditions, such as the role of SEBI or RBI in India, rather than a vague hierarchy.

My a priori probability that a selective follow-up strategy is a stable and primary factor in all market conditions is about 40%.
I would lower this figure if we consider markets where regulatory interventions can redefine performance hierarchies.
For example, sudden changes in government policy affecting cross-border investments or capital requirements (like in China) can make a follow-up strategy less relevant.
The confidence band for the importance of this strategy is wide, reflecting the volatility of regulatory frameworks and liquidity conditions in certain jurisdictions.