I think they're point out that when you're making millions of dollars a year you have an incentive to get a little reckless to try to eek out better and better returns. Sure you want to keep the gravy train moving, but if you're worth $50 million, and you the have the choice between playing it safe for $2 million, or rolling the dice and maybe making another $50... you're probably not going to be dissuaded because it's a pension fund's money.

You've already got yours so what's the worst that can happen?

Do you have actual reason to believe Tiger Global did this, or this all baseless speculation?

“Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome.”

— Charlie Munger

He has evidence of excessive risk taking (Tiger Global's returns), and an incentive structure that makes it logical for them to behave this way. That alone isn't "baseless." Also, it's Tiger Global, not Tiger Direct.

> He has evidence of excessive risk taking (Tiger Global's returns)

Loss does not prove excessive risk, even excessive loss. There is always a risk of loss in any investment.

Whether this was 99% going to happen, or Tiger Direct was very safe and this is a 1/10000 case of bad luck cannot be determined by looking at the amount lost.

> He has evidence of excessive risk taking (Tiger Global's returns), and an incentive structure

How are Tiger Global’s incentives different from any other VC? Even the majority of hedge funds have a 2+20 structure with similar incentives.

Tiger Direct is a retailer. I think you mean Tiger Global Management.

I did, my bad. A lot of your comments are marked dead (I vouched for this one), you might be shadowbanned.

>>are you trying to insinuate Tiger Global's managers were negligent/reckless with the money?

From the article.

=>Tiger Global’s hedge fund assets have been so hard hit that the outfit has in four months erased about two-thirds of its gains since its launch in 2001.

=> that’s just twice the return they would have received by investing in the S&P 500 over the same 21-year period

Not sure how to interpret these numbers.

I interpret that as: they made 6x returns as the S&P, but then had a bad quarter and are down to 2x returns.

Still sounds pretty good.

I don't think you can go -2x by pressing some wrong button on they keyboard.

Its more like they've been making mistakes over years which seem to have culminated in one event this quarter.