N/a
Text Similarity Checker Extract Text From Image Text Summarizer Weird Text Generator Cursive Font Generator Discord Font Generator Aesthetic Text Generator Wingdings Translator Old English Translator Online HTML Editor Bubble Text Generator Strikethrough Text Generator Old Norse Translator Punctuation checker Text Repeater Vaporwave Text Generator Citation Generator Title Generator Text To Handwriting Alphabetizer Conclusion Generator Abstract Generator List Randomizer Sentence Counter Bionic Reading Tool Fake Address Generator JPG To Word
You must be kidding when saying they only managed ~3b, do your research man.
https://www.sequoiafund.com/Prospectus
Look at annual report 2022
Look at their Investor Day presentation - US$14bn AuM. 68 employees, of which 26 are on the investment team. They charge a 1% management fee, which implies $140mn of revenue for the firm. It's a private partnership so they most likely allocate a larger proportion to compensation versus publicly listed investment managers. If you assume ~40% of revenue goes to compensation ($56m), and make the generous assumption that the avg comp for non-investment employees is 250k, that leaves a $39mn comp pool for the investment team. Based on the website, it looks like they have 6 PMs and 20 analysts. Do the math. Each PM could take 3-4m, leaving 15-21m for the analysts to split. That comes out to 750k-1m per analyst. Realistically, I'm guessing the junior guys right out of college are clipping =500k and the senior analysts are doing 1.5-2m a year. But the key here is consistency. Those numbers on an annual basis don't look crazy but their performance has been absolutely abysmal over the past couple of years and the team is still making this level of comp. Also don't forget that its totally plausible they allocate more than 40% of revenues to comp given the firm ownership, so the numbers could be undershooting too.
Sorry to say I've followed RCG for a long time and the returns post 2016 have been dog-shit. They overthink their investment ideas and the 5 person committee (as I understand, based on a majority vote of some sort) is not the ideal way for making investment decisions. There seems to be a total lack of consistency and plenty of politics (who gets their idea into the book is determined by politics and who likes who, etc... - my speculation). They missed some good compounders and are picking crappy companies because they appear to wedded to the work they do for a specific company without looking at the entire forest. Missing forest for the trees type of stuff. Not good. I probably can allocate 1-5B better than RCG to be honest. Brutally honest.
RCG is much more than Sequoia…
The boomers who comprise the majority of RCG LPs will not redeem.
Great seat from a risk-adjusted comp perspective though if you can BS through the politics.
They’re underperforming by 500bps on both 5yrs and 10yrs — and this is pre expenses and fees! Investors are leaving 600bps per year investing in this awful fund
their AUM has collapsed from 30 to 14bl in the past few years as well. These guys do not deserve to be managing capital for anyone, I’ve rarely seen such value destruction and never in the LO world
The investors who continue to plow money into RCG are morons. Some are starting to wake up though. See the latest investor day transcript. Some investors are pissed.
It's the Warren Buffet halo effect and pretending they get 'value' exposure when basically it's mediocre GARP (and I say mediocre because they don't even often pay up a little quality but rather buy the 'mid' compounders). Approach makes little sense, esp in large cap US
The amount of BS these guys are spinning in the investor day transcript is hilarious. And Universal Music is screwed long-term haha
talk to someone who worked there. junior analysts do not get paid that well.
Accurate
No surprise there
Value Shops don't generally pay that well unless you're a partner. The Value mindset doesn't mesh well with generous/above mkt compensation.
Seems not to mesh well with above mkt returns either :)
Yeah but yall aint got no bitches tho
NO bitches? Cap.
These guys are completely incompetent. Spoke to them a few years back, each analyst there literally covers 2 names...they have 26 analysts for $14bl AUM. Pretty crappy stats, AUM per head (analyst level and above) should be >$1bl to be at healthy levels. Would not surprise me if they came down to single-digit $bl AUM by the end of the decade
The incentive structure appears to be misaligned. Analysts spend too much time on too few names, so they likely don't understand the relative attractiveness of the investable universe. If the name of the game is to have gross on, the positions that make it into the fund are likely confirmation-biased due to sunk cost fallacy. Every public markets analyst job is to some degree a sales job, some more than others, but at Sequoia you have to imagine the sales aspect is 90% of the job (even if they think it isn't) because your singular goal as an analyst should be getting a live position. With ultra-high concentration and the slow-moving nature of the investment process, one can easily imagine how this leads to poor asset allocation.
Edit: Also I hadn't spent time to read that investor day transcript before. Wow. It's like witnessing a train wreck in slow motion.
Spot on. Frankly you only need 20% of the staff they have today in I-team to manage Sequoia (maybe another 1-2 analysts for each of the specialty strategies)
Hyper-concentration probably is a liability as well -- sure in a PA you can have 10 names and crush it shooting for absolute returns over long periods of time, but for a multi-billion institutional strategy with a 4-5 person investment committee I imagine getting something into the portfolio is near impossible, esp for younger folks. So older analysts with their established biases and positions will dominate the conversation and these guys have no clue what they're doing
Funny how they say in their investor day they know 90% of the stocks out there but can't manage to pick up nearly every winner
They are dinosaurs, I'm surprised that their other funds (Hyperion, Wishbone, Poplar) actually have $11bl AUM vs. $3bl Sequoia. Institutions have far less patience for underperformance than individuals but I guess there's there 'no one is fired for buying IBM'
Analysts suffer from confirmation bias which is they focus too narrowly on a few stocks and do like dozens of expert calls on it, and then feel since they did the work on it they have to include it in the portfolio. Sorry but doing 20-30 expert calls on one company without understanding the entire investing landscape doesn't work, the stock doesn't know you're buying it and there's too much sunk cost / confirmation bias ("because I did the work we should act on it")
I don't have much to comment but I live for the RCG slander. Don't know why they're highly regarded when they' underperformed on a 3, 5, 10 year basis.
I don't even think slander is the right term because the proof is in the pudding with 5yr and 10yr investment results (600bps net of fees underperformance). They're even down on the past 20yrs, just no excuse for such a shop to still be in business. It was once good but either what they do doesn't work anymore, their team is chronically unable to recognize good investments (no fixing that at this point) or both
It's not slander if its true. In this case, Sequoia's fund's shit returns since 2016 is undisputed FACT.
The fund had killer returns and high quality picks when Goldfarb was there, and all decision making was concentrated with him. When he left after 2016 Valeant implosion the new investment decisions are made by a "committee" of 5 or 6 analysts, by a vote. So there's a ton of politics involved that is far removed from actual quality stock picks.
Imagine if Berkshire's stock picks were made by a vote of 5 people who have various investment styles, backgrounds, and experiences rather than being concentrated at Buffett.
Architecto dolor dicta ullam sunt sint. Quaerat minima aut inventore blanditiis qui ut maiores. Nostrum suscipit amet provident accusamus quis quam. Est deserunt doloribus earum ea vitae consectetur et.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Harum quasi nobis iure sequi est. Ex et et quia labore. Sunt libero voluptas harum ut qui magni. Assumenda officia quas distinctio est laboriosam perferendis dolorum.
Omnis dolore nam dolore sint. Exercitationem labore doloribus nemo ipsam vel nobis.
Et assumenda qui architecto autem ullam voluptates. Et necessitatibus exercitationem repellendus distinctio dolor.
A ab voluptatibus alias. Omnis qui quis dolor optio corporis rem est. Expedita alias perspiciatis alias sunt blanditiis doloribus eum. Laboriosam facere a et eveniet consequatur. Magnam eos est esse voluptates et exercitationem in et.