嘉宾访谈·中文精读

丹·勒布:失传的做空艺术与选股为何回归

Dan Loeb: The Lost Art of Short Selling, and Why Stock Picking is Back

Dan Loeb 回顾从留言板到百亿对冲基金的历程,谈 Third Point 早期、从事件驱动转向质量与 AI、做空策略与房屋建筑商交易,以及刑事司法改革。

官方音频00:00 / --:--

本期章节点时间可跳到音频对应位置

  1. 0:00丹·勒布做客节目!
  2. 0:34投资者历程:从留言板到数十亿美元对冲基金
  3. 3:15Third Point 的早期岁月:导师与市场动荡
  4. 8:47策略转变:从事件驱动到质量与 AI
  5. 16:01做空的艺术与一笔住宅建筑商交易
  6. 22:15刑事司法改革与罗斯·乌布利希特赦免
中文精读由 AI 基于原始节目改写,非官方翻译,可能存在偏差或错误;观点归属与表述以原音频与官方文稿为准。说明

Dan Loeb 坐下来聊了一期,信息量很大。这位 Third Point 的创始人兼 CIO,管理着近 300 亿美元的资产,聊了他从九十年代网络论坛上的「初代喷子」到多策略平台操盘手的完整路径,也聊了做空、英伟达、以及他推动 Ross Ulbricht 赦免的全过程。

先说几个他自己的坦白:Third Point 是 Palantir 的私募轮投资者,在 20 多美元卖光了全部股票,错过后面八到十倍的涨幅;他们领投了 Upstart 的 B 轮,还早期投了 nReach,在 IPO 后卖了一些、交了税,最后股价不到 1 美元时清仓。他算过,如果拿住,这笔投资本可以做到 40 亿美元。

「我不敢说自己在怎么分配、退出股票这件事上有什么过人之处。」(Dan Loeb)

一位管理近 300 亿美元的传奇投资人,当众承认自己在「让赢家奔跑」这件事上屡屡失手,还把具体亏损金额报了出来。这个坦诚本身就是这期访谈的基调:不装,直接报数字。

从网络论坛起家:他自称「初代喷子」

查马斯·帕里哈皮蒂亚(Chamath Palihapitiya)开场就问了一个有意思的问题:在 Twitter 之前,Loeb 就已经非常活跃,只不过阵地在别处。Reddit 的 WallStreetBets 出现之前二十年,他就在玩那套东西了。

九十年代中后期,互联网刚出现,Yahoo 财经论坛、Silicon Investor 这些聊天板就是当时的聚集地。Loeb 说那是真正的西部荒野,大家匿名发言,什么话都能说,但里面确实有真材实料的讨论,和今天并没有本质区别。

查马斯问他有没有参与过 trolling,Loeb 的回答很妙:

「有人叫我 OG(元老),有时候我说我是 OT,the Original Troll,初代喷子。」(Dan Loeb)

他强调当时纯粹是玩,发泄情绪,因为他不知道自己有一天会管理机构资金。尤其在做空那一侧,九十年代市场上充斥着彻头彻尾的骗子,揭穿这些公司、嘲讽管理层、最后看着它们倒掉,本身就有很多乐趣。

他举了一个案例:一家叫 Actrade 的公司,由一个惯犯骗子运营,本质上是一家保理公司,却以账面价值五六倍的估值交易,还包装出一套叫 TADS 的「新技术」,把保理证券重新打包,声称有特殊技术含量,实际在做冰箱融资之类的生意。他们揭穿了这家公司,最后赢了。

学习路径:十个工作的二十多岁,和 Jefferies 的一万小时

Loeb 的投资启蒙很早。十岁时父亲带他去见经纪人,开始投资,虽然他父亲自己是出了名的糟糕投资人,是位好律师,但不是好投资者。十一年级时他在 Paine Webber 的分支机构打工,帮一个叫 Alan Crown 的经纪人记账、打陌生电话。

「我觉得我们当时违反了一些证券法,不过追诉期应该已经过了。」(Dan Loeb)

他那时交易西方石油和 Teledyne 的期权,几度赚钱又几度全部亏光,但他认为这是很好的教训。

正式的学习从 Warburg Pincus 开始,在那里他学会了如何给企业估值,横跨私募股权和风险投资。之后在一家风险套利公司工作。他自嘲二十多岁换了太多工作,真正严肃的成长发生在 Jefferies 的不良债券交易台。

他从研究分析师做起,形容那段经历像对着消防栓喝水:每天写不同的分析,处理大宗债券,不良资产中退出来的证券便宜得惊人。他称之为「一万小时、一万次重复」。

他对导师制有一个不一样的看法:大多数人把导师制想象成层级关系,跟着一个睿智的长者学习,但他从同侪和客户身上学到的同样多。他当时覆盖的客户里有大卫·泰珀(David Tepper)这样的顶级投资人,还有高盛史上最年轻合伙人 Eric Mindich 的套利团队。他形容自己像一家中国公司,观察、逆向工程、吸收一切,把这些人的长处整合进自己的知识数据库和操作系统。

策略转向:从事件驱动到质量与 AI

Third Point 起家的打法是事件驱动投资:不太关注生意质量本身,而是聚焦复杂的公司行为,并购、分拆、风险套利、破产重组、私有化、去互助化。这些交易因为错位、信息不透明和时间压力,创造了巨大的超额收益机会。

他引用了 Jesse Livermore 的名言「太阳底下无新事」,然后解释了那个时代真正的套利逻辑:管理层在这些交易期间有压低业绩预测的动机,正好是在证券供给过剩、期权定价的窗口期。作为共同投资人,带着被压低的预期进场,然后跟随几件事一起兑现:透明度提升、研究覆盖增加、公司交付的收入和利润率超预期。那是事件驱动投资的黄金年代。

转折点是技术成为更大的力量。查马斯点破了变化:过去你在市场上可以不懂技术照样赚钱,甚至到全球金融危机之前,不懂宏观经济也能赚大钱。现在两样都不能缺。Loeb 补充说,技术这条主线现在需要在所有地方被理解,连原本相关性不高的资金池,现在实际上也都被技术串联起来了。

今天的 Third Point 已经是一个平台:主对冲基金做股票多空和信用(包括结构化信用和高收益债)、一个收购来的 CLO 业务、一个自设的私募信贷业务(传统私募信贷、直接贷款和重组,他把重组称为非常重要的一块)、还有一家全资发起、现在持有一半股权的保险公司,承接投资级部分的资产,同时用盈余资本做灵活配置。

另一个不太为人知的线:基金内部的风投业务。他的合伙人 Rob Schwartz 是他十岁时一起学空手道的发小,1999 年二十周年同学会上重聚,当时在卖无线射频元件。Loeb 让他做渠道调研,后来又让他留意聪明工程师。他们投了 Dave Fisher 创办的 Radio Communications,做兼容 WiFi 基站的芯片,最终卖给了德州仪器。

人的角色:社交网络永远不会被 agent 替代

查马斯问了一个所有人都关心的问题:十年后,在有 agent、有 AI、有海量数据的世界里,Dan Loeb 在 Third Point 的角色是什么?

Loeb 的回答很直接:人的社交成分,认识人、捕捉机会、与人合作互动的网络,永远不会消失。你可以理论上设想 a16z 的办公室里坐着 agent,但人始终得在场,因为出资的人想知道是谁在赚钱、谁在亏钱。

「Agent 永远没法看着你的眼睛,评估那些它看不到的东西。」(Dan Loeb)

护城河思维:过去我们其实在自欺欺人

杰森·卡拉卡尼斯(Jason Calacanis)指出他的转变:过去 Loeb 的哲学是「便宜的证券加催化剂」,现在他高度关注护城河、防御性和收入的脆弱性。这个变化怎么发生的?

Loeb 承认,现在判断护城河比以前更难,而且过去投资人其实在自欺:如果把时间倒回十年、二十年前,问大家 IBM、AOL、Yahoo 的护城河,大家会给出和今天谈论某些公司一样的答案。所谓能存续七到十年、二十年的公司,判断标准本身就在贬值。

他的解法是回到管理层:没法只看一个产品或技术就断定它永远领先,所以要找那些被证明有能力持续自我更新的管理团队。弗里德伯格(David Friedberg)追问这是否可量化,有没有评分体系,Loeb 说没有,做了三十年之后,这还是一种模式识别,主观的定性判断。

做空的艺术回来了,但他不做估值做空

弗里德伯格问做空机会怎么筛选:是自上而下系统性扫描,还是机会来了就扑上去?

Loeb 说没有固定打法,但明确排除了纯估值做空:见过太多人在估值离谱的空单上被碾压,这些标的被 Reddit 上的散户抱团,或者像现在一些太空公司,涨跌毫无逻辑可言。

他详细讲了一个从去年开始的建筑商做空逻辑,两条主线:一是利率和抵押贷款利差在压制房价;二是这个行业存在结构性问题,所有建筑商都在假装自己是 NVR,号称轻资产,实际上对土地池有巨额承诺,那些号称「期权」的安排实际上锁定了真金白银。整个行业还带着疫情后库存紊乱和定价失衡的余波,房价涨到了不可持续的水平,建筑成本也涨了,买家在当前融资环境下付不起那些价格,同时又被通胀挤压。他们做空的是与这条逻辑相关的标的。

「失传的做空艺术回来了,而且它绝对至关重要。大家说这是选股者的市场,我说这是选债券和信用者的市场。」(Dan Loeb)

英伟达:5 万亿美元的「天花板」是幻觉

谈到分发股票的难题时,话题自然转到了英伟达。Loeb 抛出了一个判断:英伟达现在是 5 万亿美元的公司,很多人觉得这接近天花板,但回头看,我们会意识到这种想法很愚蠢,考虑到它的垄断地位和相对其他公司的估值。

「它现在被低估了吗?绝对低估,按未来两三年的盈利算。」(Dan Loeb)

为什么一个 5 万亿美元的东西还会被低估?他给了两个解释。一是人们难以消化人类历史上出现过的最大实体。二是机制问题:多空对冲的 pod 结构决定了他们必须做空点什么,英伟达感觉像是一个「安全的空单」。他紧接着补了一句历史:Google 曾经是安全的空单,Amazon 也曾经是。这些公司有时会在某个估值水平上蛰伏,然后突破。他认为英伟达最终也会这样。

弗里德伯格加了一个对冲观点:这里存在边界条件的折价,因为从没人见过这样的估值,你不能在这一点上过度下注。

关于「让赢家奔跑」,大卫·萨克斯(David Sacks)的观点是逐案判断:有的公司你在董事会里没法卖,最后会后悔;有的公司最好的做法就是永远拿着。他以自己天使投资的 Meta 和 Palantir 为例,卖了一部分、留了一部分。他还点出了一个时代变化:十年前大家觉得 1000 亿美元市值基本就是天花板了,Facebook 上市时 500 亿,上行空间看起来就是翻倍。现在我们有了数万亿美元的公司,市场完全不是一个量级了。

杰森补了一刀:查马斯从来没卖过 Facebook 的股票,弗里德伯格如果没卖 Google 会值 100 亿美元。查马斯的回应是,那样他就不会是现在这么好的分析师,因为不真实、不是赚来的。

刑事司法改革与 Ross Ulbricht 赦免案

查马斯把话题转向社会议题,问起了 Loeb 推动 Ross Ulbricht 赦免的始末。

Loeb 先交代了他的慈善框架:他深切关注收入不平等,起点是教育改革。他担任过纽约特许学校网络 Success Academies 的董事会主席。他的判断是:收入不平等问题的根源,和贝佐斯会不会成为万亿富翁无关,真正的症结是我们没有给孩子们、尤其是最脆弱的孩子们,配备成功和竞争所需的智力工具。贫困并非不可战胜,问题在于工会让商业世界的基本原则,问责、择优、培养人才,让位于成年人的利益。这是系统性的结构问题,缺的不是钱。

从教育延伸到刑事司法,他先做了切割:监狱里确实有很多坏人,刑事司法改革运动被一些主张不起诉、不处理坏人的人损害了声誉。但他把需要帮助的人分成三类:被冤枉的、已经悔改和完成改造的、量刑明显与罪行不成比例的。

Ross Ulbricht 属于哪一类,他讲得很细。Ulbricht 运营了早期加密交易所 Silk Road,承认自己做过违法的事并感到后悔。交易所上确实有毒品交易,这是他被指控的罪名。政府后来宣称有「雇凶杀人」事件,但他从未因此被起诉,本人也否认。他的刑期是两个无期徒刑外加四十年。Loeb 感慨:没人知道那四十年怎么在两个无期徒刑之后执行。

一位叫 Riva Tez 的女士通过 Intel 的关系找到他,她是加密圈内部人士 Olaf Carlson-Wee 的朋友。Loeb 意识到:被判无期的人没有任何系统内的救济渠道,唯一的出路是总统赦免。他们熟悉赦免流程,开始运作,然后找到 Charlie Kirk,Kirk 全力接手,把它带到了总统面前。Kirk 的律师 David Warrington 现在是白宫法律顾问,为这件事做了十年。特朗普第一个任期最后一天,他们本以为能成,但司法部警告总统如果减刑就要追责,减刑被撤回。四年后,Kirk 继续主导,这是他对总统的唯一请求,总统也向自由意志主义者和加密社区承诺过处理。最终不仅减刑,而且赦免。今天的 Ulbricht 结了婚,即将有孩子,在坐了十年牢之后重获自由。

「我不是要抢功劳,查理也不会。这需要一个村庄(it takes a village)。」(Dan Loeb)

他还在通过一个叫 Aleph 的组织持续处理个案,同时也做反犹斗争和犹太身份支持。他的理由是:资助机构很重要,但一个一个地帮助具体的人,滋养灵魂,本身就是一件好事。

一个例外:这届政府的公私合伙做对了

访谈里有个政治相关的插曲。Loeb 说他的一般判断是,政府接管什么事情都会搞砸,但他要专门表扬一下这届政府在支持私营企业上的公私合伙,这是他罕见的正面案例。

例子是他们组合里的量子计算公司 Atom Computing。政府对它的合同方式让他印象深刻:既要在密码学上满足政府需求,又在财务条款上谈了一个很硬的价,纳税人会从中赚一大笔钱,政府的参与也会实质性提升这家公司的价值。政府既是投资者又是客户,还作为客户为美国人民捕获了价值,他认为这是双赢,所有人都应得的安排。

给读者的几个要点

  • 做空别碰纯估值逻辑。Loeb 三十年的教训是:高估值标的被散户抱团和 pod 机制的「安全空单」需求托着,能碾压空头很多年。做空要找结构性损伤(如建筑商的土地承诺造假),而非价格贵。
  • 「天花板思维」是昂贵的。从 Facebook 500 亿时的「上行就是翻倍」到英伟达 5 万亿时的「到顶了」,每一代投资人都在重复同一个错误。评估巨头时看垄断地位和相对估值,不看绝对市值。
  • 私募股票的分发没有公式,Loeb、萨克斯都承认是逐案判断。能提炼的只有两条:上董事会会锁死流动性;机构性的「必须卖出」规则在十年尺度上代价极高(Palantir 20 美元清仓案例)。
  • 判断管理层没有评分表,是三十年积累的模式识别。这给普通投资者的启示是:与管理层相关的判断,只能靠长期跟踪建立,没有捷径,AI 也暂时替代不了「看着对方眼睛」的那个环节。
  • 关注信用和债券市场。Loeb 的原话是,当前与其说是选股者的市场,不如说是选债券和信用的市场。权益投资人的信息优势,正在向信用分析迁移。
文稿来自 All-In 官网(allin.com)发布的官方 Transcript,说话人按官网分轨数据标注,个别段落可能张冠李戴。
Speaker 1 (00:00:00): Legendary activist investor, Dan Loeb. He, of course, is the CEO and CIO of Third Point. Dan Loeb (00:00:06): The lost art of short selling has come back, and it's absolutely critical. It doesn't matter what you do. You have to be really selective. People talk about stock pickers market. This is a bond and credit pickers market. When we were small, our main tool was shame and humor. Speaker 1 (00:00:21): Dan Loeb turning up the heat on Nestle over the weekend. Dan Loeb (00:00:25): The shift has really been more towards a dare to be great message. Activism without proxy contest is like Catholicism without hell. Jason Calacanis (00:00:34): You're very active on the Twitter as well. Oh, wow. You found your voice. Dan Loeb (00:00:38): Lot lot of emotion brewing there. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:00:41): Can we actually start with that? Before Twitter, you were actually quite active, but they were in very different places. I mean, you were in Wall Street Bets before Wall Street Bets existed. Can you just walk us through your evolution as a public persona? Dan Loeb (00:00:56): Sure. I mean, was this brand new technology that came out called the Internet. And really shortly thereafter, long before Reddit or any of these other things, were a series of chat boards. There was Yahoo, there was something called Silicon Investor, a few other ones, and people would congregate in Kebits. It was done mostly anonymously, and it was an interesting place to exchange ideas. There was it was really the wild west. People could pretty much say or do anything, but there was a lot of but there was a lot of substance there too. It's not actually that much different than from today. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:01:34): You did you engage at all in any trolling per se? Dan Loeb (00:01:38): Well, some people use the term OG. Sometimes I say I was the OT. The original troll. Yeah, no, I did. I mean, was fun. You know, I didn't know I was one day going to run institutional money and have a big fund and I was just having fun and blowing off steam and yeah, was fun. I mean, is fun and particularly on the short side. I mean, there's so much humor in it when you detect these companies, especially in the nineties. I mean, was really unsupervised. There were some incredibly fraudulent companies out there and it was just fun to uncover them and kind of taunt the management teams and ultimately prevail. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:02:25): You have one story above others that kind of stands out in that era? Dan Loeb (00:02:31): I mean, were a bunch. There was Wow. There was a company called Actrade that I remember run by a guy who was like a repeat fraudster and we uncovered it. And I know we really got under this person's skin and ultimately it was really just a factoring company trading at 5, six, I don't remember what it said, some large multiple of book value. And they had created a new technology called TADS. I don't remember what TADS stood for, but they were basically repackaging factory securities and saying that they had some special technology. They were financing refrigerators and things like that. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:03:18): Tell us your evolution as an investor. When you started Third Point, I mean, started with very, very little capital. Now it's almost 30,000,000,000 of AUM. You're multistrat. But you learned at Jefferies. I think, like, you learned helping people like David Tepper allocate capital. Just walk us through how you learned to invest. Dan Loeb (00:03:39): Well, I started really fascinated by investing and wanting to do it. I think when I I remember when I was 10 years old, my dad took me My dad was a notoriously bad investor himself, so he didn't give me any good examples. He's a great lawyer, not a great investor. But he took me to meet a broker and I started investing. And then in high school in the eleventh grade, I got a job at the branch office of Paine Webber working for a guy named Alan Crown who let me post his books and make cold calls. And I think we broke certain securities laws, but I think the statute of limitations has passed. I would trade options on Occidental Petroleum and Teledyne. There was a lot of volatility. And I think I had flurries of making money and lost all of it a couple of different times, but it was a good lesson. I continued doing it in college. And then my learning started really formally at Warburg Pincus where I really learned to value enterprises. It was my first job Private, kind of across the spectrum of private equity and venture capital. I worked at a risk arb firm, which was really invaluable. And then skipping forward, I had way too many jobs in my twenties. But I got really serious at Jefferies. I had an amazing opportunity to work on the distressed debt desk there. I started out as a research analyst. I was just like drinking out of a fire hose. There was so much activity. The securities were so cheap coming out of distressed. And it was, you know, the ten thousand hours, 10,000 reps. We would write up different things every day. There are big blocks of debt to move. And I really got that was my real learning point. And I stress this to people that, you know, everyone's kind of sees mentorship as a sort of hierarchical thing where you, you know, learn from some wise older person, but it's I learned a ton from my colleagues, from my own cohort, and I learned a ton from my customers. Dan Loeb (00:05:49): You know, like Eric Mindich was a boy wonder at Goldman. He was the youngest partner. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:05:55): Earnest partner at Goldman. Dan Loeb (00:05:56): Yeah. Ran the arb desk there and he had this triumvirate or quadrumvirate, whatever the four people. I don't want to leave them out, but Amos, Maron, Dineker and some other guys. Anyway, they were great. And they really kind of brought me into their thought process, thinking about event driven investing. And then, you know, I covered some of the smartest people in the business, including David Tepper. I got to watch their thought process. And I was like a, you know, like a Chinese corporation that was like copying and reverse engineering and taking everything in and creating my database of knowledge and my own operating system kind of taking the best out of what all these different people did. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:06:43): And what was that style when you first started Third Point? What was that expression? Dan Loeb (00:06:47): That was Well, I think, you know, we call it event driven investing. It was really less focused on the quality of business, more focused on very complex transactions, takeovers, spinoffs, risk or arbitrage, bankruptcies, privatizations, demutualizations. And these transactions created unbelievable opportunities for Alpha because of the confluence of dislocation, opacity, kind of time, but also this goes and nothing changes. Now, always quote this Jesse Livermore line, there's nothing new under the sun. A real focus on management incentives. So, So in all these different kinds of transactions, management was incentivized to sandbag their numbers during a time when there was an excess supply of securities where their options were being set, And we as co investors got to come in with these depressed projections and ride along not just the Well, we got to ride along a few different things that would happen. Greater transparency and understanding of the business coverage companies that delivered a top line and margins and ROE and everything else better than expectations. So it was really a golden era for that type of investment. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:08:07): And from where that started to what Third Point is today, just describe that and where you want to Where do you go from here? Dan Loeb (00:08:14): Yeah. So, stylistically that event approach, It's still something we think about. It's in our framework. But I think what happened really when technology became a bigger force, but really everything changed is a greater focus on business quality and innovation and disruption and more thematic on the one hand, understanding of consumer trends, what's going on in financial services, what's the economic macro backdrop that's supporting all this. And of course, the big topic of this event, you know, AI is sort of the culmination of that, but all of these major technological innovations that have really happened since Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:05): You could make money before by not being technology savvy in the markets. Dan Loeb (00:09:10): You could be technologically illiterate or just say, don't do it. And you could also be even more or less Up until the GFC, I think you could be more or less economically illiterate and make a lot of money. And now? You wouldn't want to be either one of those things. I mean, given how much more important Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:29): Like the tech through line needs to be understood everywhere. Dan Loeb (00:09:32): Yeah. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:09:33): But even if you're like Blue Owl and you're trade I mean, Owl obviously is very sophisticated in tech now, but any pool of capital that used to not be correlated is effectively correlated? Dan Loeb (00:09:45): I mean, yes. Yeah, you could say that. And I just want to answer your questions to kind of fast forward and give people a snapshot of what we do today. Rob Schwartz is my partner and we took Campo Karate together when we were 10 years old. It was a purple belt. I think I never made it past yellow belt, but we reconnected at our twenty year reunion in I'm aging both of us. Sorry to give up your secret, Rob. In 1999, it was our twenty year reunion. And he was working as a sales rep for wireless RF components. And I said, wow, this guy'd be great to do channel checks for us. And then I asked him a couple years later, say, you meet some smart people. If you ever come across a really savvy engineer, we should invest. We didn't know what we're doing. We weren't venture capitalists, but we're getting behind a person. There was a guy named Dave Fisher, started a company called Radio Communications. They made chips. He made chips that were, I still remember, ABG compatible for WiFi base stations. And ultimately the company was sold to Texas Instruments. And, you know, we've, I won't go deep into our venture business, but that we started to do within the fund. We've done a couple of dedicated funds. So, we have that strand of activity. We can talk about a little bit more about what we're thinking and how we're seeing this. But I think what ultimately what I want you to get to is that all these things are interconnected and come together under the platform that we have today. Because we have the main hedge fund, does credit, equity long short credit is both structured credit and high yield. We have a CLO business that we acquired. We started a private credit business, Does traditional private credit, direct sponsor financing, direct lending and workouts, which is very important. So, solutions as they call it, a lot to do there. And then we started an insurance company a few years ago. It's not the first insurance company we did. We did a PNC company, but this one was wholly owned. Dan Loeb (00:11:56): Now we own half of it. And the insurance company captures basically the investment grade part of what we do. So private credit through structured vehicles, structured credit, whole loans, investment grade, both private and public. But we also can use our surplus capital in very interesting ways. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:12:20): So what's the role of the human? What's the role of Dan Lobe in running Third Point ten years from now? Like ten years before, Dan Lobe was 100% of Third Point. Uh-huh. And then there's now there's agents, there's AI, there's all this learning, there's all of this data. Where do you see the role of the human? Where do you see the role of systems making decisions, allocating capital, managing risk? Dan Loeb (00:12:47): I mean, so first of all, investing now, like, first of all, my time is spent primarily on managing the hedge fund, which for now is the biggest capital pool and the most important business that we're in. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:13:02): Yeah. Dan Loeb (00:13:02): The human element, and I think this is true for everyone you have here, like the element of social component, the human network of knowing people, being able to capture opportunities, work with people, interact, like that's never going away. Like you never Maybe you can theorize that there will be agents that will sit at Andreessen Horowitz and whoever else your funds. But I think the human will always have to be there because people like to, you know Chamath Palihapitiya (00:13:35): You want to know who's making or losing the money. Dan Loeb (00:13:37): Yeah. And there's a there's a thing that I think the agents they have will never really be able to look in your eye and assess all the Jason Calacanis (00:13:44): You've things that your philosophy of investing in companies from cheap cattle, cheap securities with catalysts is I think how you described it on a podcast recently. And now you're very concerned about moats, defensibility and just the quality or the brittleness as Chamath likes to remind us of the revenue. So maybe could you tell us how you evolve that core thinking about the quality of companies and then maybe give us some examples of the companies that now fit through that filter where you feel they have a moat, you feel they have durability. Dan Loeb (00:14:20): Obviously that's everything right now. Chamath talks about the time bounded value of companies and I think that's essential. Are the companies that are going to be around seven to ten to twenty? Like what are the real moats that exist out there? And it is harder now. I don't think we can I don't know that we can really go out, you know, ten or twenty years ago? By the way, I think we deluded ourselves earlier because I think if you ask people about the moat around, you know, IBM or, you know, some of the other companies AOL. AOL, Yahoo, you know, you'd say the same thing. I mean, we're investing outside of tech into companies that have, you know, some great Well, first of all, it also comes back to the management because we can't really just look at a product or a technology and say, Oh, this is going to be it forever. So we really look for a management team that we think will be adaptable. And just like you guys were saying last night, you don't want to be on boards of companies. These are things that they should be doing. So I think that's a huge part of it. Like finding management teams that you really believe in that a proven ability to stay ahead of. David Friedberg (00:15:46): Is that quantifiable or is it still very much a subjective Dan Loeb (00:15:50): Sorry, is what? David Friedberg (00:15:50): Is it quantifiable assessing the management team? No. Have you built a rubric for doing that? No, it's still very subjective qualitative. Dan Loeb (00:15:57): I think it's one of those things after thirty years, there's like a pattern recognition and Yeah. You David Friedberg (00:16:02): Let me ask a question on screening. You know, think you've said recently publicly that there's a lot of opportunities on the short side in the market right now for the first time in a long time. How do you start top down? Is top that down or is it an opportunistic, something comes across the wire and you guys jump on it in kind of an event driven way? Or do you guys have kind of a systematic top down approach to looking at the market and finding those opportunities? Dan Loeb (00:16:32): Yeah, there's no one approach to it. I think one thing that we've avoided is kind of a valuation, a solely valuation based approach. I've seen too many people get run over by shorts that have dumb valuations, but they get captured on, you know, Reddit or one of these other things and they just get there, you know, or like some of these space companies right now that there's no rhyme or reason. We had a really strong view on homebuilders from last year that there were two things going on. It just rates, mortgage spreads that were depressing housing prices. The home building industry was first structurally impaired because of the way that they were all pretending to be NVR, is they all pretending to be asset light, but they had massive commitments to these land pools, which in things that they said were options, but they were really very committed in the capital and that that value was going on. But that the home building industry was really the last industry that had this post COVID hangover of inventory disruptions and pricing that really made no sense. You know, had all those prices went up to unsustainable levels, but so did building costs went up and buyers are no longer able to pay those prices at the current financing environment, but they've also gotten squeezed by inflation and costs. So that's been something, so we've been short on things related to that. Jason Calacanis (00:18:25): Let me bring Sax into the discussion here, Sax. We've learned a little bit about distribution of public security as your famous indie all in theme song of this great quote, Let Your Winners Ride. I'm curious when you hear Dan talking about this, how you think about as a private market investor, to navigate distributing equities and how you've sharpened your blade about, you know, which ones have brittle or, you know, more robust revenue. Dan Loeb (00:18:54): I mean, I'm sure you guys share this. It's one of the most vexing questions. We were private investors in Palantir and I think we sold all our stock in the twenties, Huge mistake. Jason Calacanis (00:19:08): Gosh. I missed the 10x after going public. Yeah. Or 8x or something. Dan Loeb (00:19:12): We were private. We led the B round in Upstart. That was one I think we learned not to go on boards anymore because it restricts your ability to be liquid. But we're also early investors in N phase. And we sold some stock on the IPO and then took a tax hit. And I think sold it under a dollar and the stock, I think had we stayed on, would have made $4,000,000,000. So I am not claiming to have any great expertise in knowing how to best distribute our David Friedberg (00:19:45): Dude, markets are brutal. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:19:47): It's so hard. Mean, this is why I Jason Calacanis (00:19:50): bring it up. We've all struggled with this. Sax, wherever you wound up. David Sacks (00:19:53): I think it's case by case. I mean, there's some companies where, like I was on a board and you can't sell and you end up regretting that. And then there's others where the best thing to do is just hold on to that stock forever. Jason Calacanis (00:20:06): Examples in your portfolio, where you've We're made great David Sacks (00:20:10): not going talk about the ones that didn't do so well, no, I mean, look, I've owned Meta and Palantir as a as a venture investor, as an angel investor. Jason Calacanis (00:20:22): And you sold? David Sacks (00:20:23): And the question Well, I sold some and held onto some. Obviously, in hindsight, you take Meta. I think Meta IPOs, Facebook back then, IPO 50 Got you, billion 50,000,000,000 now it's Jason Calacanis (00:20:38): you imagine how the alternate universe Chamath Palihapitiya (00:20:41): Like 400, right? Jason Calacanis (00:20:42): Chamath never sold his Facebook, Or how insufferable he'd if Freiberg never sold his Google, Freiberg would be worth 10,000,000,000. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:20:50): I wouldn't be nearly as What's that? I wouldn't be nearly as good. It's like It's an Jason Calacanis (00:20:54): analyst because it created tension. Not real. It's not earned. David Sacks (00:20:59): So back in those days, ten years ago, we thought a $100,000,000,000 market cap company was pretty much as big as anything could get. Yeah. And so Facebook at 50 or whatever, it's like the upside was to a 100. Things are just totally different now. We have multi trillion dollar companies. The market's so much bigger and changes. Dan Loeb (00:21:18): I mean, that's a rub against Nvidia, which is a $5,000,000,000 company and people feel like it's sort of a ceiling on it. I think we'll look back at some point in time and say that was a foolish way to think about NVIDIA given its dominant position and its valuation relative to the other Is it undervalued right now? Yeah, absolutely. On earnings over the next two or three years. Jason Calacanis (00:21:39): And is it because people are having a hard time processing the largest entity that's ever existed in human Dan Loeb (00:21:45): I think that and the narrative that the Well, first of all, technically there's all this other stuff that's growing faster and going up more. People are, and the long short pods are structured such that they have to be short something. So Nvidia feels like a safe short. By the way, Google was a safe short. Amazon was a safe short. So, I mean, this just happens and sometimes they'll languish at a valuation and they break out. I think that'll eventually happen with Nvidia. David Friedberg (00:22:15): But there's probably some boundary condition discount to that, right? Like we've never seen a valuation like this. You can't over bet that. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:22:22): I want to shift topics for a second, just want to talk society and culture before we run out of time with you. There was this incredible thing that you told me, which I relate to these guys, which is you're very passionate about criminal justice reform and specifically you were a key person to get the pardon of Ross Ulbricht. Tell us your views on criminal justice, why it hit such a nerve, and then why Ross Ulbricht? What happened there that said, I must fight for this guy? Dan Loeb (00:22:53): Well, let me take a step back and just talk about my framework for philanthropy, which is, I think not unlike Brad Gerstner and many people in the room here, that I care, I would say everybody up here, I care deeply about income inequality. I care deeply about making sure that as many people have opportunities to the incredible things that we've all had here. So my interest in criminal justice reform really started earlier with an interest in education and education reform. And I was very lucky to get on the to start supporting, get on the board, ultimately be chairman of Success Academies, which is a charter school network in New York. And I do think nobody talks about it, but the thing that's hiding out in plain sight for everybody is that the problems with income inequality isn't that, you know, Jeff Bezos is going to be a trillionaire or all these other people are gaining wealth. It's that we're not equipping children and particularly the most vulnerable children with the intellectual tools that they need to succeed and compete. And it's not because poverty is this intractable thing that can't be overcome. We've proven that it can be. The problem is that the unions and the basic principles that we all use in business, which is accountability and merit and cultivating talent is set aside for the benefit of adults who are part of these unions. It's a systemic thing. It's not a lack of money. It's really a lack of it's just a broken structure. Jason Calacanis (00:24:31): Accountability is I think what I'm hearing. Yeah. Dan Loeb (00:24:33): So I spent a lot of time on that. I'll just leave it at that. I then became aware, and it was interesting, was looking for issues that conservatives you know, it was great to see Fetterman and McCormick up here. Like what are issues that conservatives and liberals, progressives can agree on? Hopefully, can agree that we want young people to be better educated. I think we can also agree that whenever you put the government in charge of something, they'll it up one way or another. I I want to give you guys a shout out though for not up this private public partnership with the investments in the private sector. Because I think this administration has done an enormously good job at backing companies, let's put that aside. It's one of the rare instances where I've seen that. Jason Calacanis (00:25:18): Can you give an example of that that's standing out in your mind? Dan Loeb (00:25:20): We have a company in our portfolio called Atom Computing that with many other quantum companies has gotten money from the government. And we were just super impressed that they how they contracted with us to engage with them in cryptography and to meet the government's needs, but also in the financial component, they drove a really tough bargain. The government, the taxpayers are going to make a ton of money on this and their involvement also will contribute meaningfully to the value of this business. It's just like a win all So they're Jason Calacanis (00:25:58): an investor and a customer. Dan Loeb (00:25:59): Right. And they are capturing part of that value as a customer for the American people, which they, I think everybody deserves. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:26:09): Okay. So back to the Dan Loeb (00:26:10): So criminal justice reform, first of all, there's a lot of bad people in jail. I'm not one of, you know, I think the criminal justice movement has been undermined by folks who see it as an opportunity to not prosecute, not deal with bad people that are out there. But there's also a lot of people that are rehabilitated. Well, there's really three different categories. There's people who are falsely convicted. There are people who have shown contrition and rehabilitation. And there are those who just had a really disproportionate sentence relative to what they did. There's a case right now of a guy named John and Grobman, who was dealt in gray market diapers and formula. He got an eighteen year sentence for dealing these goods. In the case of Ross Ulbrich, I was approached by someone and this just seemed Ross, as people may know, probably this room knows, he was sort of a folk hero because he had this sort of cat and mouse game with the government. He ran Silk Road. Silk Road was one of the first crypto based exchanges. He acknowledges that he did things that were illegal that he should have done. He regrets it. Drugs were dealt on the exchange. But that's what he was accused of. The government later said that there were murder for hire incidents. That was never prosecuted for that. And he denies that that ever happened. But in any case, he was sentenced to a double life double life plus forty years. Who knows how he got the extra forty years on there and how he would spend that after he'd been there for two lifetimes. And there's a woman I met through Intel named Riva Tez who alerted me to this. She's friends with Olaf Carlson Wee and sort of the crypto insiders. And I thought about it, it's like, this guy's got no way out. There's no recourse through the system to get someone with a life sentence out of jail. Dan Loeb (00:28:31): This will only work with a presidential pardon. And we worked on it. We had some familiarity with the pardon process, worked on it. Then I approached Charlie Kirk about this. And Charlie really embraced this and embraced this individual as someone who had been falsely, or not falsely, but unfairly sentenced. He took it to the president. Charlie also had an attorney named David Warrington, who's currently the White House Counsel. White House Counsel. I just found out a couple of days ago because I was talking to him that he was his lawyer for a decade. So I'm not taking credit for this. I'm not saying Charlie does. It takes a village, but David had been working on it. And on the last day of Trump's forty fifth term, we were certain that he was going to get out and the justice department for whatever reason said, if you commute his sentence, we're going to go after you to the president. And so he, as I understand, he withdrew the commutation. So four years went by and really Charlie took the lead on this. This was his only ask of the president and the president had to libertarians and to the crypto community promised to deal with this. And not only was his sentence commuted, but he was pardoned. Today, Charlie is married Not Charlie, sorry. Ross is married, is having a child and living a free life after spending a decade, which is probably argue whether that was the right amount or not. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:30:18): And you feel like you should Is there a role for you to play in doing more of this? Was this a Dan Loeb (00:30:23): lot Yeah, of I continue to work on cases. There's an organization called Aleph and we work constantly on different people. And I think it's I feel like as philanthropists, it's great to work with organizations. And there's a lot of great organizations I work with. I do a lot fighting antisemitism and supporting Jewish identity also. But I also think that we can help people one at a time. I think it just really nurtures the soul and I think it just a good All thing to Jason Calacanis (00:31:01): right, let's give it up for Dan. Chamath Palihapitiya (00:31:02): Dan Lodgen.

本集资源与出处