His fund did not fold.

In fact, the returns were so astronomical that they took a $35B loss (around 67%) which means they were still UP 80% for the year in 2026.

Today they have around $10B under management.

As an investor, how would you feel about being up 80% for the year? Exactly. They're having a phenomenal year.

This is only true if newer investors get pro-rata ownership of the Anthropic stake. If that position is side-pocketed, then any investors who were not there at the time of the Anthropic allocation are looking at around 90% loss on their investment.

He sold the fund to another buyer - it folded by every definition of the term.

He did not sell the fund. He sold the publicly traded portion of it.

He currently still has $10B under management.

What's the point of posting blatantly wrong details? It's pretty easy to look them up.

You can argue the semantics all you want and ignore the original premise of my comment - which is romanticising people who have perceived "foresight" is super weird.

His fund didn’t fold btw. They sold / were forced to sell a position that was several hundred percent up at a very very bad price relative to peak. AFAIK the fund is still up on the year though.

AIUI they were forced to sell all their positions in public companies at a net loss. The fund is still up for the year only because of a prior investment in Anthropic.

It did.

It's not part of the strategy or operating agreement of a GP/LP structure to sell a specific fund to another investment firm at a discount. The fund may buy and sell assets to create returns for LPs but selling the fund itself at a discount is not a successful exit, e.g. they folded.

I feel like I’m arguing against the grain here, and it seems to me like there’s a lot of emotion around this topic. I’m not even a defender of AI billionaires. I just posted because I see this type of discussion around SA recently and it’s mistaken. So I’ll just leave this comment, and it goes for the other replies too.

What happened to SA is not what anyone would call “a fund folding”. Normally you’d assume folding means the fund went bankrupt, or closed at a loss.

This fund is not closing and not on a loss. It’s not bankrupt, and apparently it is opening up new positions and continuing to invest in its main theme last I saw it in the news.

It is on a major drawdown from its peak a few months ago, but it’s still up for the year, most of its investors are likely well in the positive. If you make a huge investment and it goes up 5x before trimming its gains and ending up 100%, you’ll be annoyed, you’ll wish you sold at the top, but you’ve still doubled your money.

Getting margin called and closed this way is not the same as going bankrupt.

> This fund is not closing and not on a loss.

> Getting margin called and closed this way is not the same as going bankrupt.

Technically we don't actually know the details here since no one here is privy to the specific fund structure - which is very likely WAY more complex than reported.

So, realistically we're arguing semantics. I said it folded and for intents and purposes if you're getting margin called and have to sell, then that's folding.

Just like in poker I can fold and not play anymore and still have a stack of chips.

That is called folding the fund. It did in fact fold. "My fund would not fold if I made different hypothetical decisions" argument means your fund did in fact fold.

Yes, being unable to pay margin call means your fund is folding.

Sounds like a fold to me.