I was answering his point that 400% returns are impossible without leverage, and my argument was that they were in the right stocks at the right time to achieve those kinds of returns without leverage. Since a lot of their portfolio is/was options without strikes or durations listed and the exact dates of their buys/sells is unknown it's not possible (AFAIK) to reconstruct their P&L exactly but it seems plausible to me that, given the stocks they were concentrated in and the quarters they start reporting those positions, that they could have gotten 400% returns in a year without leverage. If I were an LP reading their filings saying that (for example) they held 25% of the fund in Intel during a half year period where it went up 200%, plus some other similar holdings, resulting in overall 400% returns I wouldn't automatically conclude they were levered.

Sure if you buy one stock and it goes up 1k percent it's possible. But that's unrealistic and being that concentrated is unacceptable for a fund.

Any sophisticated investor that read that a fund they were invested in a single name would be upset. Unless it's a special vehicle or they're activist and have a position for some strategic purpose. But just to let such a large percentage of your fund on a single name stock is insane.

I'll also add that options are essentially leverage. Leverage doesn't have to be borrowing it's just describing what $1 price change does to your position. You can buy at the money calls for 3-12% of the stock price. And they move up slightly less than $1 if stock goes up, so you're essentially getting 10-20x leverage. And if they're not above the strike price at expiration they're worthless