Business

Citadel hedge funds record broad gains in first half as tactical strategy outperforms during quant selloff

Ken Griffin's firm reported positive returns across major strategies through June, with its tactical trading fund posting the strongest gains in a volatile market backdrop.

Seoul Globe Desk

Editorial Team

Published on July 5, 2026

2 min read

cover-1783254522774.png
Share
Kakao share is loading.

Citadel posted positive returns across its hedge fund strategies in the first half of 2026, led by strong performances in its tactical trading and equities funds. The firm's tactical trading fund rose 14.3% through the end of June, including a 3.1% gain for the month, while its equities fund returned 11.2% for the first half after advancing 3.5% in June. Citadel's flagship multistrategy Wellington fund gained 5.7% through June following a 1.8% monthly increase, and its global fixed income fund rose 1.7% in June, leaving it roughly flat for the year.

A person familiar with the firm's private performance figures said Citadel's tactical trading strategy also avoided a late-June selloff that hit parts of the quantitative investing space. That strategy blends discretionary stock investing with quantitative methods. Goldman Sachs' prime brokerage unit told clients that systematic long-short strategies suffered their worst five-day stretch since December 2023 between June 23 and Monday, largely because crowded trades and momentum positions on the short side unwound.

The gains came during a turbulent first half for broader financial markets. The S&P 500 climbed 9.6% through June and returned to record highs after falling for five straight weeks in February and March. Investors navigated swings tied to higher oil prices during the Iran conflict, uncertainty over whether heavy artificial intelligence spending would continue, and changing expectations for Federal Reserve policy before the market rally broadened beyond the biggest technology stocks.

Citadel managed about $69 billion in assets as of June 1. The firm declined to comment on the reported results. No competing interpretation of the performance figures was presented, though the returns were described by a person familiar with the matter who was not identified because the information is private.