Some FinTwit accounts keep claiming I'm a fraud and a con artist...
According to them, I didn't really own a stake in my first investment management firm (I was merely an employee) and that my trades/performance are all made up.
I run this account for free, don't charge...
....anybody a cent, don't do any paid marketing, don't even accept any offers to run funds, share my research for FREE and don't run any paid service....yet, I'm accused of being a fraud!
My $1m wager to get my portfolio CAGR verified by CPA is still available...no takers yet.
If anyone has any doubts whatsoever about my career history, you can look up my name on Hong Kong Securities & Futures Commission website (public register). Here is the link -
I was one of three founders, 30% shareholder, Director, SFC regulated Responsible Officer for my first investment management firm which we set up in 2001.
In 2005, I resigned from that firm and set up my boutique investment management firm which...
...I ran until 2016.
After 11 years of managing portfolios for family offices, companies and high net worth individuals, I retired from the inv. mgt. business and my company was bought by a Hong Kong-listed asset management firm. Since then, I've just managed my own capital.
I was a licensed Responsible Officer with the Securities & Futures Commission of Hong Kong (SFC) for 15 years (2001-2016) and had a perfectly clean track record (no disciplinary actions against me) and after conducting extensive due diligence, a listed and SFC-regulated...
...asset management firm bought my company, yet on FinTwit some haters/clowns claim I am a fraud!
Not sure what their motives are but their claims are both ridiculous and untrue.
Hope this clarifies the situation.
Final thoughts -
A lot of 'deep value' accounts on here are horrified that my 'overvalued' stocks keep going higher and higher. A couple of years ago, they claimed I was a loser and now, they say "oh! he just got lucky."
These guys/girls cannot accept the notion that perhaps...
...by investing in high-growth, innovative companies and hedging my portfolio (to reduce drawdowns), I was onto something. No, they hide behind their anonymous Twitter accounts (with their sheer hatred and jealousy on full display) and they now try and smear my reputation.
Sad.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This deceleration shaved off 24% of Fiverr's market cap!
Here is a company which despite very tough comps (after last year's COVID related boost to its business), announced that its revenue will grow ~50% this year and its stock got smoked!
Agreed; its valuation was elevated but this 83% gross margin business is now...
...valued at ~21 X year-end EV/S.
Yesterday, Fiverr announced its active buyers grew by 43%YOY in Q2 '21 to 4 million and spend per buyer increased 23%YOY.
So, apart from a mild slowdown in its business (expected after last year's bump), all other metrics didn't indicate...
In today's day and age, thanks to globalisation and progress in the developing world, creation of mandatory pensions + investment plans, the investor pool has grown tremendously and there is a constant inflow of investment dollars.
Add to this mix ZIRP + QE and one can see...
...why valuations have deviated from the historic norm.
Finally, never before in the history of capitalism have so many asset-light, high margin businesses (with recurring or sticky revenues) dominated globally and grown so rapidly for so long.
30-40 years ago, the best...
...businesses used to grow revenue by 20-25% pa their capex was usually high and most had to build factories and produce goods.
Today, dozens of globally dominant companies are growing by 50-100+% pa, they are asset light and their marginal cost is approaching zero....
Founder-led, capital light, non-cyclical high growth businesses with big TAMs, long runways, recurring revenues/sticky customers and high margins are almost always "overvalued".
Why should such companies be cheap?
Even during COVID-crash, the best names were richly valued.
Not investing because of "overvaluation" has been a big mistake for ~20 years! All the big winners looked overvalued + stayed rich for years.
Even during the GFC crash-low, the highest quality compounders were "overvalued".
In the long run, business quality > valuation.
Valuation matters obviously - the lower the valuation at the time of 'entry', the higher the subsequent return.
However, the most promising businesses are hardly ever 'undervalued' and the best time to buy into them is during stock market sell-offs, when they get marked down.
Judging by some of the comments on here, many would rather sit through a gut wrenching decline (40-50% drawdown in their portfolio) and pray than put up with a few whipsaws when the market reverses higher soon after putting on a hedge.
Strange logic...beats me but hey-ho!
EVERY single stock market crash or major decline starts off as a 'normal pullback'. No way to differentiate which one(s) will turn out to be a hair-curler.
This is why best to take every signal and defend capital during every downtrend. Whipsaws are NORMAL and can't be avoided.
Whipsaws do NOT cause drawdowns in a portfolio, they simply cause one to miss out on some upside (portfolio stays more or less flat until hedges are removed).
When large declines come along (and they do), big profits from hedging tend to cover the whipsaw losses.
Leader in Robotics Process Automation
80%+ gross margin
Founder-led (he owns > 20% of shares)
Impressive revenue growth
TAM --> $60b+
145% $ based net retention rate