🏅 Top traders

This is not unavoidable - private fund valuations are notoriously sticky, and VC funds typically only write down their valuations when a new fundraise has occurred, independent of how other parties are marking their assets.

It's possible that Sequoia writes down a given fund, referencing 3rd party write-downs, but the standard approach is to wait for a future company fundraise to write down the asset. You would too if your performance metrics referenced when fundraising for your next fund were dependent on paper gains.

@CarsonGale Sequoia has literally completely reorganized in the last six months. It was basically a mutiny I think I read. So I bet this happened.

@BTE anecdotally, the valuations for other Sequoia funds I've sold recently have not been impacted by internal reorganization.

@CarsonGale Fuck yeah dude, this is fantastic information!! Why didn't you lead with that!?!?!

@BTE well Twitter isn't in the other funds I sold! :) FWIW I still think it's totally possible it gets written down, but VC's selfishness in not writing stuff down is a constant source of consternation in my industry! (PE/VC secondaries)

So would be totally in-character for Sequoia to obstinately hold to the $44b

This is unavoidable. Musk is the only board member and he has valued it at $19Bln, less than half of the acquisition value.

https://x.com/alexeheath/status/1719057954572493203?s=20

Seems more likely than not if the internal valuation is at $19b, and the valuation at purchase was $44b.

Fidelity marks down value of Twitter stake by 56%

@jacksonpolack I saw that. That is what inspired this market. Curious to see if there is consistency. I don't believe they all use the same valuation but rather do their own except during new fundraising.

@BTE do you expect to have access to Sequoia's internal valuations? These are typically proprietary.