Scott Wilson discusses investment strategy and risk management (Part 3)

Why? Why hold a position that could be sold? Yeah, for us it's relationship driven. These aren't held in SPVs where we could easily sell. It's one exposure in a fund of 40 other investments. So we wouldn't be selling just one thing in isolation. Those particular partners, like they're, they're great partners for us. So we're happy to hold it and you know, if it goes public, we have the ability to hedge if we think the price is right. How do you think about the stock distribution lens? We've seen several managers say actually we think we can manage your position once public and so we're going to create vehicles to do that. Others say we're going to distribute straight to you in stock. How do you think about what is the right way and then what do you do once distributed with the stock? Yeah, I mean it depends on the situation. We have stuff that we owned as private company and it went public five years ago like Nubank, it's in our 13F. We've owned that since it was a private company, it was distributed and we still own it almost five years later. Other companies that goes public and we have the ability to hedge exposures even pre distribution, we'll do that if we think the valuation is frothy. So for us it's kind of valuation. We probably have some independent view on what we think the right value for the stock is and so we'll partially hedge or fully hedge the position. So you get stock, you do a scheduled sell down over an 18 month period. It's totally ad hoc and it depends on a per name basis. I agree. I think Nubank's amazing and David is a rock star. I'm a holder too. But how do you do that for something like SpaceX or a really big, big position that we think still has like a ton of potential upside over the next five, ten years? Like we'll, you know, try and be as thoughtful as we can and it's, you know, I always say it's better to be not stupid than clever. So it'd be stupid to not take some chips off the table because we have a fiduciary obligation to the university and the mission of the university. So we'll take some chips but if it were a much smaller position we would just hold it for the next 10 years. So we're to some extent just risk managing that position but we'll gradually sell out it over a multi year period. I believe you were one the only allocator to suggest to Sequoia that maybe the Eternal and Evergreen funds were not optimal. How do you think about and reflect on that? And did you kind of sit back and go, wow, this is a bold move as you were doing it? I mean, it was controversial enough that we discussed it with the board. I mean, they're great investors, they're great people, and they've obviously made LPs a ton of.