HML_Compounder

I have spent about 10 minutes flipping through this, but wow, when did Bloomberg become the agitprop wing of the DSA? First impressions (there may be more): - Deferring not eliminating taxes isn’t the 0% they brazenly put in their graphic (they even modify the zero immediately in the explaining text to “near zero” which it’s also not — do they even have compliance there @MikeBloomberg?). - Tom Steyer, give back all the money you apparently think you stole based on the carried interest exemption before you say a damn word (an exemption which hedge funds mostly don’t get btw: wsj.com/articles/round-up-th…). Or were you just “following the law”? Does that reason work for everyone Tommy? Also, as a personal message from me to you, kiss my ass you desiccated 5x loser. You found you couldn’t suck up to the DSA enough to get elected huh, so you desperately try to stay relevant this way. Oh, and Morris Pearl, whoever the hell that is, late of Blackrock, with his Patriotic Millionaire bullshit (non-binding virtue signaling crap from mostly a bunch of vicious personal tax optimizers) might want to scroll here to find “long-short tax aware investing”: blackrock.com/us/financial-p… - Lots of quotes out of context. As usual the left (and I’m talking to the left who both wrote and consume this BS) loves to take jokes and make them sound real when they don’t like someone invariable viewed as being on the other team (amazing they didn’t quote me saying there are “fine people” on both sides of the tax debate). When I wrote “only death is certain now” it was whimsical. But when your class enemies use whimsey you pretend it was real and attack right? Because you’re “journalists.” Also when you are honest with the world, as right or wrong anyone following me knows I have been for 35 years in this business, they make it a gotcha when I, on my own, share a funny self-deprecating story with the world. I joke about this one with self-deprecation (wsj.com/articles/SB124425620…) but the “journalists” will seize on it like they ferreted it out like Woodward and Bernstein. Yeah, I punched a computer monitor, 18 years ago, and I’ve written about it and joked at my own expense (i.e., the monitor was embarrassingly unhurt). You guys got me good! The tattoo however is real. Got me. It’s going away though. That is not a fun process and they lie to you about how many painful sessions it will take. Kids, stay in school and don’t get tattoos. - A subtle one. I gave kudos to him because I read Rob Arnott’s paper on taxes eating your alpha back in 1993 (when the NY Rangers had still gone 53 year without a Stanley Cup). They make it sound like I was a silent movie mustache twirling villain waiting 20-25 years since then to finally pounce. Again, journalism. - Most importantly, the moral issue, and there is one here just not the one these MS NOW aspirants highlight, is that of working in your clients interests. We use the same pre-tax alpha models for all our investors, taxable and non-taxable (non-taxable is where we started and still manage > 100B). Now, if you manage for both, how do you not, within the law (and it’s well within the law for any administration despite that slimy backhanded quote), minimize or defer the tax burden on your taxable clients to the best of your abilities and still think you’re remotely acting in their interests? Remember post GFC when it was all the rage to insist managers act in their clients interests (we always did)? Apparently that’s suspended, and is actually immoral, when it’s a successful hedge fund manager managing for taxable people of means (and, again, pre-tax for pension funds and charitable endowments and mutual fund investors etc.). Oh, and while most things you took out of context and with prejudice, which is shameful (do you think you are down the middle journalists?). The one you got right is my comments on Mamdani. In context. I take back not a word of that. Otherwise you guys did really well. bloomberg.com/features/2026-…