Great post. Like many others Tiger put money into the market during the ZIRP era, when valuations were rising inexorably and of course Tiger and competing capital allocators felt pretty good about taking credit for the portfolio gains from their brilliant strategies.
From personal experience, we went up against one or two "Tigers" who competed with us for coveted companies that were for sale during the later stages of ZIRP. These people had done well investing hyper aggressively during early ZIRP, and by mid-late ZIRP they were formidable adversaries in competitive bids. We lost one and we won one. We made several X on the one we won...time will tell whether we would've made money on the one we lost.
Lee Fixel from Tiger was one of the first mega early stage investors in Indian Tech (Flipkart, Ola etc.). The inside joke is that he would fund any idea as long as the founder is from traditional business castes (baniyas etc.) who went IITs with a double digit JEE rank. A crude American equivalent would be like funding only Jews who went to Stanford. All the social politics aside, is actually a fairly good proxy and they ended up being quite successful.
Nice write-up. Theoretically, if Tiger Global continues to "DCA" for the next 20-30 years, I would think they could actually be quite successful with their high velocity & diversity strategy. But, seems like it will be hard to keep that much money flowing through to prop up a proper long-term strategy, especially with the recent turmoil.
If I could, I would stick 10-15% of my portfolio into a 30 year Tiger Global Index Fund.
And private markets are different than public markets in that now I think there would be adverse selection in the companies that would take their money -- i think it would be a negative signal that good companies would avoid
So you can't actually guarantee that you're getting a good cross-section of the market (similar issue CU faced).
Great post. Like many others Tiger put money into the market during the ZIRP era, when valuations were rising inexorably and of course Tiger and competing capital allocators felt pretty good about taking credit for the portfolio gains from their brilliant strategies.
From personal experience, we went up against one or two "Tigers" who competed with us for coveted companies that were for sale during the later stages of ZIRP. These people had done well investing hyper aggressively during early ZIRP, and by mid-late ZIRP they were formidable adversaries in competitive bids. We lost one and we won one. We made several X on the one we won...time will tell whether we would've made money on the one we lost.
Lee Fixel from Tiger was one of the first mega early stage investors in Indian Tech (Flipkart, Ola etc.). The inside joke is that he would fund any idea as long as the founder is from traditional business castes (baniyas etc.) who went IITs with a double digit JEE rank. A crude American equivalent would be like funding only Jews who went to Stanford. All the social politics aside, is actually a fairly good proxy and they ended up being quite successful.
Nice write-up. Theoretically, if Tiger Global continues to "DCA" for the next 20-30 years, I would think they could actually be quite successful with their high velocity & diversity strategy. But, seems like it will be hard to keep that much money flowing through to prop up a proper long-term strategy, especially with the recent turmoil.
If I could, I would stick 10-15% of my portfolio into a 30 year Tiger Global Index Fund.
And private markets are different than public markets in that now I think there would be adverse selection in the companies that would take their money -- i think it would be a negative signal that good companies would avoid
So you can't actually guarantee that you're getting a good cross-section of the market (similar issue CU faced).