Toby

[Toby @wtp345]

@MichaelSalfino Hart is only 1 for 9 with 3 pts! Of course delivering tons of value elsewhere but guessing he'll hit some shots at some point too :)

[Toby @wtp345]

@NKondratiev Oh cool...not my area of experitse but I feel like you can have just as much if not more positive impact being an ethical prosecutor as a PD!

[Toby @wtp345]

@NKondratiev What type of work in public service?

[Toby @wtp345]

@fkronawitter1 @tylermacro10 How does the nuclear issue get resolved? Seems like each side has a hard line on that. I know Trump dgaf and would sell anything to his base but still seems tricky

[Toby @wtp345]

@Neb2323 seen a lot of folks metnion this but i think 1) it would be wildly politically unfeasible 2) to the extent gov got involved would have to be bad for equity / debt holders to be politically doable and 3) major timing mismatch btwn when sh*t starts to hit fan and gov involvement

[Toby @wtp345]

@vrexec ha 100%

[Toby @wtp345]

high level I think it's almost impossible for AI not to lead to a major bust at some point. There's just no way for a tech innovaiton of this scale (even assuming it's a great productivity enhancer over time) to be integrated without a big timing mismatch

[Toby @wtp345]

history doesn't repeat exactly bc we learn enough not to make exact same mistakes, but it rhymes bc we don't learn any more than that lol. Hence why if AI is a bubble (prob at some point, timing TBD but getting closer) it's a near term earnings bubble that seems justifiable

[Toby @wtp345]

this is blowing up the earnings of the whole supply chain (chips etc) and also inflating the EPS of hyperscalers that can depreciate huge spend over many years

[Toby @wtp345]

so pricing for every chip / component in the AI chain is going to 10x but this won't crush the ROI of the buyers of said inputs and/or destroy end demand when end user pricing needs to make for a good ROI on this pricing?

[Toby @wtp345]

@CioEnd @BuffaloBillCo lol yes, they could've just bought ~zero fee liquid us equity exposure and done better, that's the whole point! Since they're taking levered largely US equity risk with a lot of their PE (and QQQ risk with their VC) anyways

[Toby @wtp345]

@CioEnd @BuffaloBillCo I would argue that there was legit alpha to this model from early Swenson to somewhere in the GFC range +/- 5 yrs? But I think the broader point is why should we celebrate them beating a dubious benchmark when they are clearly deviating from trying to track it

[Toby @wtp345]

@CioEnd @BuffaloBillCo I understand how it works, but you’re kind of making the point that there’s nothing worth celebrating here. They’re outperforming the benchmark bc they absolutely should (especially in a hull market). I guess you can celebrate them relative to some others in the space?

[Toby @wtp345]

@BuffaloBillCo @CioEnd Exactly, seems like they’re just taking a lot more risk. I guess we’ll see how they perform vs 70/30 in a true bear market, or maybe we won’t bc they’ll never be forced to take / realize marks on PE? Regardless they should obviously be measured vs true risk they are taking

[Toby @wtp345]

@Jesse_Livermore yeah I LOVE the Elam ending idea to fix end of game...that said, it is a radical change so I at least understand the hesitancy there. Maybe experiment using it in in-season tourney? And then reduce TOs and review time in the meantime. Foul-baiting is awful too but not easy to fix

[Toby @wtp345]

@CioEnd @BuffaloBillCo Shouldn’t the fair benchmark for a lot of their private market exposure be modestly levered SMID cap equity (for PE) and Nasdaq (for VC)? But those are also allocation decisions vs just owning US-weighted global equity. Either way don’t think 70/30 makes much sense