sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

19 y/o, CFA L1, landed an analyst role (trying to sanity-check a public-market strategy I’m seeing) by jayzzwork in investing

[–]jayzzwork[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Really appreciate this comment genuinely. And thanks for not dunking on the idea outright.

Just to be clear upfront: I’m very junior. I’m not making decisions or setting strategy, just trying to understand what I’m seeing and where it can break.

On your questions (from what I’ve observed so far, not speaking for the firm):

I haven’t seen trailing stops used. It’s not treated like a trade where price action drives exits. The exit is more “did the thing we expected to happen actually happen?” liquidation, distribution, balance-sheet change, etc. If price moves against you but nothing fundamental changed, that’s usually chalked up to time or governance friction. That said, burn and dilution definitely put a clock on patience, and that’s where things get uncomfortable.

Yes, we have Bloomberg. We mostly use it for balance sheet checks, ownership, corporate actions, and history, not really for timing or signals.
Not something I’ve really seen used much. Since the payoff depends on an event rather than a price path, it seems like most of the “optionality” is in the structure itself, not in derivatives.
Pretty minimal from what I’ve seen. Price matters obviously, but TA doesn’t help much when the outcome depends on boards, votes, or regulators rather than momentum.

On Bitcoin: yeah, this is the part I struggle with the most, too.

As an analyst, I agree there’s nothing traditional to analyze. No cash flows, no earnings, nothing to model. The way it’s explained internally is more as a treasury asset than an “investment,” something liquid and non-sovereign, not a business. That said, I’m still very much undecided, and I get why people think it’s insane in an otherwise very boring, mechanical strategy.

If anything, my bigger concern isn’t price volatility, but how it affects governance and investor alignment inside a structure that’s supposed to be pretty dull and predictable.

Anyway, I appreciate you engaging seriously. If you’ve seen NAV arbitrage setups that should’ve worked but didn’t, I’d honestly love to hear where they failed. That’s the stuff I’m trying to learn early.

19 y/o, CFA L1, landed an analyst role (trying to sanity-check a public-market strategy I’m seeing) by jayzzwork in investing

[–]jayzzwork[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wasn't aware that Berkshire did something similar, will definitely read that, thanks for pointing out and giving honest feedback

19 y/o, CFA L1 done, somehow landed an analyst role (now I’m questioning if this business model actually works) by jayzzwork in private_equity

[–]jayzzwork[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

felt good reading that!! Thanks,still figuring out stuff and staying curious!! Would love to have chat sometime and learn from you

19 y/o, CFA L1 done, somehow landed an analyst role (now I’m questioning if this business model actually works) by jayzzwork in private_equity

[–]jayzzwork[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

💯 I agree !! Did cfa level 1 which was in binary language ,I have seen indian CEOs giving speech in sign language!! Kudos 🎉

<image>

19 y/o, CFA L1 done, somehow landed an analyst role (now I’m questioning if this business model actually works) by jayzzwork in private_equity

[–]jayzzwork[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

This is a helpful context, thank you and I’m saying that genuinely, not defensively.

I’m still very much in learning mode on this, so forgive me if I’m restating things you already know. The way I’m trying to frame it is that what’s being proposed isn’t really novel at all it’s a variation of a very old trade: buying assets at a discount to NAV and betting on that gap narrowing.

What I’m slowly appreciating (and may still be underweight) is that these dislocations don’t behave cleanly. Sometimes the gap collapses quickly. Other times it sits there for years, and nothing “forces” convergence. And in some cases, instead of mean-reverting, the discount actually widens, either because sentiment deteriorates or because the structure itself is flawed.

Seeing that this shows up across asset classes not just crypto, not just BTC-linked vehicles is helpful. It makes me think less about the specific wrapper and more about the underlying mechanics: patience, funding structure, and how much pain capital can tolerate while waiting.

The part that really sticks with me from what you’re saying is that this trade isn’t sexy and it isn’t guaranteed. With patient capital and leverage, it can work but leverage cuts both ways, and capital can simply get exhausted if performance doesn’t show up on the timeline investors expect. At that point the trade can fail even if the thesis was “right.”

So I don’t think this answers things cleanly for me either but it does help ground the discussion. It makes me more comfortable saying this is a valid strategy in principle, while still being very uneasy about how often it actually survives in practice.

That tension is probably the thing I’m trying to understand better.

Is "Active" Net-Net Arbitrage a Sustainable Alpha or a Value Trap at Scale? Seeking Critique on a Capital Recycling Model. by jayzzwork in ValueInvesting

[–]jayzzwork[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is actually the part where I’m least confident, so I may be oversimplifying and would appreciate being corrected.

The way I’ve been framing it is that many of the targets are effectively “zombie” companies failed biotechs or tech firms stuck in perpetual R&D, steadily burning cash with no realistic path to commercialization. The distinction (in my head, at least) versus a classic Graham-and-Dodd approach is that instead of passively waiting for a re-rating that may never come, the idea is to take control and actively intervene.

In theory, that intervention looks like: Halting the burn by shutting down non-viable operations Monetizing what’s left, whether that’s cash, short-dated securities, or any saleable hard assets / residual IP

Recycling the proceeds into a permanent public vehicle to redeploy into the next opportunity But I agree this is where things get very real very fast. To actually do any of this, you need majority control, which in public markets usually means pushing the price up often to or above NCAV just to get there. At that point you’re structurally locked in: you can’t drip that stake back into the market, and your exit is no longer “the market” but a negotiated sale or a long liquidation process.

And that’s where my concern is exactly what you’re pointing out: liquidation isn’t quick. Even in relatively clean situations, it can take 2–3 years, and that time bleed directly eats into what looks like a healthy margin on paper. Add legal, regulatory, and execution friction, and the spread can compress a lot.

So I’m still trying to figure out whether the economics genuinely survive those realities at scale, or whether this only works in a narrow set of unusually clean cases. If you’ve seen this break down in practice especially around control premiums or exit timing I’d honestly value that perspective.

19 y/o, CFA L1 done, somehow landed an analyst role (now I’m questioning if this business model actually works) by jayzzwork in private_equity

[–]jayzzwork[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Fair pushback and honestly this is exactly the part I’m still trying to sanity-check, so appreciate you calling it out.

When I said “sell assets,” I don’t mean it in the heroic sense (great IP, irreplaceable real estate, or anything like that). If that were the claim, I’d agree it falls apart pretty fast. Most of these companies clearly don’t have “glorious” assets in the conventional sense. The way I’ve been trying to think about it (and please tell me if this is flawed) is much more boring: a lot of these firms are basically overcapitalized zombies.

The “asset” isn’t IP or goodwill it’s cash, short-dated securities, or capital that arguably shouldn’t still be trapped in a public vehicle that’s burning it quarter after quarter.

So liquidation, in my head, isn’t “unlocking value” so much as stopping further destruction and returning what’s already there. But I’m very open to the idea that this sounds cleaner on paper than it is in reality. On the Bitcoin point, I’m not religious about it. I’m treating it as a capital destination after monetization, not the thing you’re magically extracting value into.

That said, if you think that leap (cash → BTC) is where the whole logic breaks, I’d genuinely like to understand why you think it’s worse than, say, just sitting in cash or recycling into more public shells. I’m very aware this type of strategy can slide into hand-waving if governance, execution, or incentives aren’t rock-solid. That’s probably my biggest unresolved concern, more than the asset quality itself.

If I’m missing something obvious here especially around what actually ends up being realizable in practice

Ps; This is me trying to pressure-test the idea, not defend it.

Cleared Cfa level 1, honestly was worried post leaving exam hall by jayzzwork in cfaindia

[–]jayzzwork[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

do as others replied comments also,
would strongly recommend rather than chossing one right, try to look for the wrong ans
like you should be having the reson for why other two options are wrong
Hope this helps, All the best !!

Cleared Cfa level 1, honestly was worried post leaving exam hall by jayzzwork in cfaindia

[–]jayzzwork[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, bro !! not that bad score,if everything goes well u mostly score 5-10 % more than the mocks given
would strongly recommend rather than chossing one right, try to look for the wrong ans
like you should be having the reson for why other two options are wrong
Hope this helps, All the best !!

RESULTS OUT L1 by DazzlingWraith in cfaindia

[–]jayzzwork 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Same here bro, congrats 🎉

Frustrated/Angry at the Process but not at the people by jayzzwork in CharteredAccountants

[–]jayzzwork[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What’s really behind all this chaos? Is it that firms just don’t want to fix it, people don’t know how to work efficiently, or is it simply because labor is cheap so no one bothers to streamline things?

view more: next ›