Somewhere at a fund manufacturer, a compliance team sat down and decided that vibes alone were not enough. This actively managed fund invests in companies applying artificial intelligence to healthcare, and it defines a "Healthcare AI Company" as one that derives at least 40% of its annual revenue from AI-enabled healthcare products or services.
I want to sit in on the meeting where that number was chosen. Was 35% considered and rejected as insufficiently rigorous? Did 45% feel like it excluded too many promising names? There is something almost touching about applying that level of legalistic precision to a theme this fashionable. Healthcare is an industry famous for adopting new technology roughly a decade after everyone else, and here is a fund willing to stake an entire stock-picking mandate on the idea that this time is different. Possibly it is. The 40% rule, at least, suggests someone has thought about it harder than most.