There's a great chance that this analysis is totally wrong. Peter probably has a chunk of money is his fund through a General Partner account. That's what would receive the 20% performance fee (if they have positive investment returns). Many times, that money just stays in the Fund.
@LelandDarnsies: Wrong on two accounts. Clarium takes a 25 percent performance fee, not 20 percent. And Clarium had a disastrous year last year, which means it made essentially no money. Thiel has earned fees in the past, when his fund was much smaller.
1.) 2006 is a faraway time. Most hedgies have seen the wisdom in putting less of their money where their mouth is. I would be very surprised if Mr. Thiel has retained this approach.
2.) As you disclosed, liquid net worth. Other, harder-to-value assets like the Facebook stake likely pepper his portfolio. I'd be shocked if that was Mr. Thiel's only venture, after all!
The presence of that statement document doesn't make such a blindered analysis credible. You can get the pitchbook and the marketing materials pretty easily, even from the most cloistered of funds. Hell, the only reason you aren't bombarded with them is because of marketing and disclosure laws that identify you, Mr. Thomas, as neither an Accredited Investor nor a Qualified Purchaser.
@ADismalScience: According to my sources at Clarium, he still keeps his assets at the firm. He no longer runs his personal finances through Clarium, however -- that's how his employees caught him making a donation to NumbersUSA, the anti-immigration lobbying outfit.
@Carol Gardens: It's an interesting question -- one I haven't gotten to the bottom of. But one reasonable scenario is that he put his PayPal shares into a Roth account. They would have appreciated quite nicely, tax-free, giving him a larger pool of money to reinvest in Facebook.
Interesting information, but what's your complaint? He runs a fund that pension funds, public and private, are free to invest in? He does what he can to shelter his money from taxes? The only legitimate criticism I see is that his fund underperformed.
I don't buy into the narrative you tried to weave together about his actions being wrong. Viewed individually, his actions were fairly reasonable and unrelated.
@sample032: I think Owen properly raised some salient questions about Thiel's investment strategy.
I don't know if it's exactly a "complaint" to point out that there might be fishy about someone's avowed investment strategy, but it's certainly of interest to readers of Gawker like myself.
Why do all the libertarians want to live forever? Is it because they're all such arrogant assholes? Because they all seem either to be looking forward to the day when they can upload themselves into robot bodies or practice things like calorie restriction so that they can live! forever!
@oudemia: I'm definitely no (selfish, narcissist) Libertarian, but I have daydreamed what it might be like to suddenly hundreds-of-millions rich, the lottery fantasy. And the first thing I thought of was, I'd quit smoking immediately.
Isn't that pathetic? I don't think it's a libertarian thing, it's a very rich thing.
Aging and mortality are sad realities for everyone, but anecdotally, the very rich classically take it especially badly, like spoilt children. They're used to absolute mastery of their own worlds, and death becomes an enemy they (foolishly) think they can outwit, evade.
05/14/09
05/14/09
05/14/09
1.) 2006 is a faraway time. Most hedgies have seen the wisdom in putting less of their money where their mouth is. I would be very surprised if Mr. Thiel has retained this approach.
2.) As you disclosed, liquid net worth. Other, harder-to-value assets like the Facebook stake likely pepper his portfolio. I'd be shocked if that was Mr. Thiel's only venture, after all!
The presence of that statement document doesn't make such a blindered analysis credible. You can get the pitchbook and the marketing materials pretty easily, even from the most cloistered of funds. Hell, the only reason you aren't bombarded with them is because of marketing and disclosure laws that identify you, Mr. Thomas, as neither an Accredited Investor nor a Qualified Purchaser.
05/14/09
05/14/09
Color me shocked. Foolish and vain, though I suppose it fits the profile.
05/14/09
05/06/09
05/06/09
05/06/09
I don't buy into the narrative you tried to weave together about his actions being wrong. Viewed individually, his actions were fairly reasonable and unrelated.
05/06/09
I don't know if it's exactly a "complaint" to point out that there might be fishy about someone's avowed investment strategy, but it's certainly of interest to readers of Gawker like myself.
05/06/09
05/06/09
Isn't that pathetic? I don't think it's a libertarian thing, it's a very rich thing.
Aging and mortality are sad realities for everyone, but anecdotally, the very rich classically take it especially badly, like spoilt children. They're used to absolute mastery of their own worlds, and death becomes an enemy they (foolishly) think they can outwit, evade.