-13.1
net board stance
what this means
133.71
+0.0% · close 2026-09-08
+5% / +1% / +1%
1m / 3m / 12m
-35%
vs SPY since 2025-05-17
67%
of 52w range · -11.3% off high
—
hit rate as primary
Where we stand — 2 live ideas
| idea | call | play | conviction | contributes | flag | eval in |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 📈 Private equity model is broken | ▼ SHORT | adjacent ×0.5 | 14.5 | -7.2 | — | 23d |
| 📈 Endowment liquidity crunch forces discounted private-equity secondaries | ▼ SHORT | adjacent ×0.5 | 11.8 | -5.9 | — | 116d |
Where the winds are blowing
NET BOARD STANCE, LAST 60 EPISODES —
rising = the besties are building this position, falling = abandoning it. Replayed from
score_events; an idea counts from birth until its window closes.
PRICE VS SPY OVER THE SAME WINDOW, % — did the
talk lead the tape or follow it?
Who's pushing which way
each voice's net push ON THIS TICKER — their most recent stance per idea × the idea's direction × strength, so supporting a bearish idea pushes down. Not conviction (that lives on the idea); this is direction of travel per person. what w= means
What resolves next
kill dates for the live ideas holding this ticker — each one turns into a scored verdict on that date, whether we like it or not
Track record on APO
No closed window has used this ticker as its primary play, so there is no scored record here yet. Adjacent plays are listed but never scored.
| idea | call | play | verdict | R | α | closed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 📈 Private capital concentrates in a few mega-GPs that take themselves public | ▲ LONG | adjacent | HIT | +15.6% | +10.4 | 2024-01-08 |
| 🏛️ Atkins SEC loosens accredited-investor gating and retail money reaches private markets | ▲ LONG | adjacent | MISS | -15.4% | -30.1 | 2025-12-07 |
| 📈 You cannot build durable public equity value on a bet-making business | ▼ SHORT | adjacent | MISS | -30.8% | -48.9 | 2025-08-02 |
| 🏛️ Carried interest loophole gets closed in the Trump tax bill | ▼ SHORT | adjacent | HIT | +21.5% | +5.2 | 2026-02-07 |
The tape — what was actually said
every capture on any idea holding APO, newest first · quotes verbatim, timestamps deep-link into the episode
the equity got fully impaired. And then the debt is clearly impaired because you can see how the debt and the CLOs are trading, ... the sales team is just not hitting their targets.
I think private equity is totally screwed... private equity in general is totally owned... What you find in most private equity portfolios are B and C companies run by C and D folks... The money's already leaked into private credit, which is the next big bubble that's building.
What they will have to do in order to finance their budget in probably 18 months is start to actively sell their private equity portfolio, which by the way, from 2019 to this year, almost doubled from 20 to 40%. So an insane asset allocation, frankly, an asset misallocation at the top of the market to the most illiquid asset class. And when people sniff this out, what they're going to do is, Harvard was able to sell a billion dollars recently of private equity stuff and managers that they didn't want to support anymore at a 7% discount. There is no smart money on the street that's going to look at any private equity portfolio from Harvard without asking for 20, 25, 30, 35, 40% discount, because your back will be totally against the wall.
PH
Philippe Laffont
support ×2
▼ on
📈 You cannot build durable public equity value on a bet-making business
E227 · 2025-05-09
▶ 1:21:34
If I can compound capital at 12.5% incentive fee for a very long time, it's better than 20% for a short period of time.
The optimal basket of the companies you'd want to own for the future, because of these rules and regulatory burdens, are partially public, partially private, and so you need a vehicle that can straddle both if you want to own it.
Yeah, it's retail investors and sovereign wealth funds outside the US seem to be the answer to that question.
PH
Philippe Laffont
support ×3
▲ on
🏛️ Atkins SEC loosens accredited-investor gating and retail money reaches private markets
E227 · 2025-05-09
▶ 1:17:55
these interval funds are really interesting because I think the minimum investment is like $50,000 or something like that. And the conditions to qualify for such a fund are much smaller. So there's many more investors that can come. And I look at it a little bit of like, this is the democratization of tech investing.
I think what's gonna happen is not much of anything. I think the rules are gonna stay exactly where they are.
I would want to invest in everything. I'm not disagreeing with the notion. I'm pointing out what will happen, which is predatory a*****s will show up and they'll rip people off. That's what happens in every one of these f*****g markets.
So all I'm arguing for is more education and a path for those people who want to do it, to show five hours of education, 50 questions, that they have an above average knowledge of how private companies work, just so they have the choice to do that.
I mean, who's going to stand up and lay on the railroad tracks for being able to amortize a multi-billion dollar sports team purchase or that when you make a fund investment, you should get long-term cap gains treatment? Who is going to be that person in this? Nobody's going to stand up for these things.
And I do think if you were to allow ordinary Americans to buy private companies that are held to a lower standard of disclosure and reporting to public companies, like something would have to change
In fact, I think it's more likely than not that people are going to go market bullsh** securities and private markets and rip poor people off even worse
JO
Joe Lonsdale
support ×2
▲ on
🏛️ Atkins SEC loosens accredited-investor gating and retail money reaches private markets
E206 · 2024-12-07
▶ 36:55
Imagine if Elon could raise for SpaceX from regular Americans. I'm sure he would have loved to do that if it wasn't crazy risky with the SEC
I mean, there's such an easy solution to this. You just do a sophistication test. People take a five-hour course and they answer 50 questions. The end, like a driver's license
But I think it just goes to show you that in finance, these entities that try to sell a piece of the quote unquote general partner as a company, I just think that it's frankly that it doesn't work. And this is just an example, yet another example that there's not a lot of equity value in these businesses.
They're cutting two funds out of their 20, and then they're cutting their commitments to the weaker ones of the other 18
But now they have a lot of mouths to feed. So when you put money to work, you pull down more fee. And so, you know, these funds now, I mean, if you're Tiger or some of these big funds, you have giant cost bases that you've created because of the size of the firm that you created.
BI
Bill Gurley
support ×3
▲ on
📈 Private capital concentrates in a few mega-GPs that take themselves public
E141 · 2023-08-11
▶ 25:19
I think a lot of people realize that if you can get 2.5% or 3% management fee investing $300 million at a pop, that's an easier lifestyle than actually taking board seats and doing work. And so I think a lot of money and activity got pulled into the late stage market. Nearly every firm started doing that.
The risk adjusted returns on ventures, and this is not to throw shade at even all of those people that you mentioned are fucking terrible.
And all of a sudden, the profits don't matter, which means the outcomes don't matter, which means the diligence is perfunctory.
So Insight was trying to raise a $10 billion fund and they've only been able to raise two, according to this article.
Yeah, but I actually think retrenching is good because it simplifies things.
Then they tried this like very convoluted evergreen structure right before the market fell apart, where you could basically become a permanent capital vehicle. And as far as I can tell from the outside looking in, it just seems like a tax, a tax play for the GPs to not have to sell and realize capital gains.
All roads lead to, it says we're in for a slog. And so trying to put a $2 billion fund to work doesn't seem to make a lot of economic sense to some of the smartest people in the room.