It's a bit ironic that here, in Silicon Valley, you have countless investors chasing 100x winners, and yet if you had just bought $AAPL at an average price in 1997, you would have a 1000x return by now.
In the public markets. No hot IPO. No private access needed. 🤷♂️
45
11
327
Replies
@adamnash
Do I get credit for selling my 100% of my Apple ESOP shares at the end of 1997 so I could pay rent while starting up? 🤦♂️
2
0
31
@adamnash
They’re basically the only company to constantly reinvent themselves and their product line. Not many similar opportunities aside from Elon.
1
1
1
@rjurney
That’s not really true (ex: Nintendo), but also not really the cause here. You could have bought Google in 2005, Amazon, etc.
The real driver is public company valuations have now gone to the trillions vs. billions. That’s 3 orders of magnitude.
1
0
4
@andrewjiang
Funny. But $GME started the year at $17.25... so 1000x would be $17,250 per share. 😉
0
0
1
0
0
0
@mattsoldo
Same logic applies to angel & venture investors, right? Got to keep this apples to apples, so to speak. 😉
0
0
0
@adamnash
loss aversion bias in psychologically is twice as powerful as the pleasure of gaining... after the initial rise the first dip you get and you're out...
1
0
1
@adamnash
I'll never forget at the end of business school (2007) a classmate sold his BMW and put all of it in Apple stock. I hope he held on!
0
0
1
@adamnash
Listed markets will only continue to get more interesting with the access only increasing over time.
0
0
1
@adamnash
Part of me says this is value investing working, but another part says there is an opp to take a “long term VC view” to great public companies. So invest in the same VC style (piling capital into winners, same frameworks), just with public companies.
0
0
0