Ten years? Did you read the disclosure in YOUR letter stating YOUR returns begin on 6/1/11, or did you forget when you launched your first fund? You don’t appear to even have a ten-year track record, @chamath. Looks like 9 yrs 7 mos. The whole thing is confusing. Intentional? 1/ Image
Are you desperate to include Berkshire’s 48.7% decline and the S&P 500’s 26.4% drop in your “long-run” comparison? Actually, it appears that you do have a 10-year record. As of tomorrow...Of course a year-to-date presentation would have to include the losses on the four SPACs. 2/
Next, I’m very confused by your reply stating, “the discrepancy in your S&P returns vs ours is because we calculated it as an IRR based on when we made our investments.” What is “IT?” You label your returns as IRR, but are you saying you calculated index returns as an IRR? 3/
IRR’s incorporate cashflows. What cashflows would you use for an index? Must say in three decades of investing I’ve never seen an index presented as an IRR. Some clarity here? I’d assume you're talking about your returns? Presenting gross without disclosing net returns? Hmm? 4/
May I recommend you take down your letter and revise it with corrections? I’d highly recommend if you insist on presenting your returns as IRR and gross of fees that you also present TWR (time-weighted returns) and net of fees (guessing those are not insignificant) as well. 5/
Per your disclosure, it appears you operate 5 LPs & 6 SPACs. Surely you have data allowing easy calculation? I’d guess the LPs are valued no more frequently than monthly? You obviously have the cashflows invested, allowing the calculation of IRRs, which can overstate returns. 6/
Calculating TWRs will be easy. And more honest. You can hire a CFA to do so. In fact, fixing the math in your letter really can be done by an undergraduate intern with freshman-level classwork completed in calculating the time value of money and proper table-labeling skills. 7/
Finally, it’s come to my attention that the comparison of a thoroughbred to a jackass is unfair. I completely agree, and apologize to jackasses everywhere, great animals to be sure. In the meantime, I'd lay off the comparisons to Mr. Buffett and Berkshire.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Christopher Bloomstran

Christopher Bloomstran Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ChrisBloomstran

30 May
I read your 2020 annual letter with interest, @chamath. Odd it was published in late May, but we’re all busy. Before commenting on this incredibly bad take of a comparison to Berkshire Hathaway, allow me to help you with some math. First, 1965 to 1974 is TEN years, not nine. 1/ Image
Berkshire did return 12.5% against 1.4% from 1965-1974 but that’s actually ten, not the nine years you reference. Simple mistake, I’m sure. Had you used nine years Berkshire had returned 22.7% annually, quite a bit higher than the 12.5% you errantly show. More on this soon. 2/
Second, for what its worth, the S&P 500 actually returned 18.4% in 2020, not the 17.88% you mentioned twice and were careful to point out included dividends. I’d rather round to the tenths, check my source and be correct than round to the hundredths and be precisely incorrect. 3/ Image
Read 23 tweets
26 May
Strange seeing a $LMND thread deleted "justifying" a 121% gross loss, 50 points from the TX freeze alone & use of AI to deny claims by detecting lying in recorded messages. Stranger still seeing yet another new entrant into the private passenger auto game. Will they not learn? 1/
Fin-tech often means even though we light cash on fire it must be worth a fortune. If you gave me $1.5 billion and said go disrupt some industry, property/casualty insurance would NOT be it. It's remarkable some of the things that get financed in the name of disruption. 2/
For a company that’s raised $1.5 billion to disrupt renter, pet health and homeowners insurance, writing a cumulative $185 million to lose a cumulative $369 million seems like a bad idea. Now Lemonade will go after Progressive, GEICO and the heavyweights in auto? Smart. 3/
Read 19 tweets
25 May
This is not a comparison I'd make, Gary. Completely different businesses, completely different capital requirements and structural profitability. At the end of 2017 $AMZN earned a net margin of 1.3%, but anybody who understood the company knew the margin was headed way higher. 1/
It took no fanciful dreaming to understand $AMZN's net margin would likely grow to perhaps 10% over the next decade, a 10x increase. Investors knew they weren't paying anywhere near the 250x-300x multiple to earnings you suggest, but far less to a realistic achievable margin. 2/
The net margin has already grown to 6.4% over the last year and 7.5% in the most recent quarter. Importantly, Amazon's enormous capital requirement to grow was clearly scalable. Capex will now match depreciation & returns on equity net of the enormous cash balance are mid 20s. 3/
Read 9 tweets
25 May
I’ve read this Brainard speech three times. Some takeaways:

Private money/crypto? We will kill you.

Stablecoins? We will kill you.

Cash? It will be digital and our liability. All of it. Kiss paper fiat goodbye.

The unbanked? You will be banked. We will be the bank. 1/
Payments, clearing, and settlement providers? We will help you (Read: We will disintermediate you and your profits).

Currency and bank accounts? We will complement you (Read: We and our international colleagues will disintermediate you and your profits). 2/
Privacy? Kiss it goodbye in the name of eliminating illicit activities.

Who knows where CBDCs wind up, but the Fed doesn’t float trial balloons for grins. The ability to print and send money directly to citizens in times of crisis circumvents the Federal Reserve Act. 3/
Read 4 tweets
20 May
Investments are occasionally priced dangerously far in excess of value. Commodities and speculations as well. When prices rise to where only a fool would buy from you at a higher price, that’s the Greater Fool Theory. Here’s a proven method for knowing you own such an asset...1/
2/
3/
Read 4 tweets
15 May
Interesting thoughts on the vagaries of deflation. Curious @CathieDWood what your research team learned when you had them study market cap to GDP, famously now the Buffett Indicator? Perhaps by now you have discussed and published your findings? I haven’t seen anything. 1/
Recall you had written on April 11 that you believed the measure was 2 to 3 times today’s level in the late 1800s and early 1900s. I’d replied but you probably missed it. At today’s level of 200% your premise suggests the stock market was 4 to 6 times the size of GDP. 2/
Of course the peak then was 90% in 1929, followed by an 89% stock market decline and 45% plunge in GDP. Earlier, despite the industrial revolution, the economy was very agrarian & very private (not publicly traded). The market largely consisted of utilities, railroads & banks. 3/
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(