Offshore
Photo
God of Prompt
Perplexity just replaced my entire research workflow.
No more opening 50 tabs. No more saving bookmarks. No more "where did I see that?"
Here are 10 Perplexity prompts that replaced my research tools: https://t.co/KryzV5nPk0
tweet
Perplexity just replaced my entire research workflow.
No more opening 50 tabs. No more saving bookmarks. No more "where did I see that?"
Here are 10 Perplexity prompts that replaced my research tools: https://t.co/KryzV5nPk0
tweet
Offshore
Video
Startup Archive
RT @aakashgupta: Everyone repeats “don’t compete on their territory” without understanding what Tony actually did.
DoorDash launched in 2013. Grubhub had been operating since 2004. Uber Eats started in 2014 with Uber’s existing driver network, brand recognition, and SoftBank’s billions.
The conventional wisdom said: build network density first. That meant cities. Higher order volume. More restaurants per square mile. Faster delivery times. Better unit economics on paper.
So Grubhub focused on major metros. Uber Eats leveraged urban driver pools. Every incumbent’s spreadsheet model optimized for the same variable.
DoorDash went to the suburbs.
The alternatives to delivery were much worse there. Customers were more affluent. Average order values were higher. And suburbs were home to chain restaurants that customers already loved but weren’t set up for delivery.
The math flipped: DoorDash operates in 4,000 towns. Uber Eats operates in 500 cities.
When COVID hit in 2020, Americans flooded suburbs, exactly where DoorDash had been bringing restaurants online for years. DoorDash’s business more than tripled that year alone. Grubhub’s own exec called it watching a miracle unfold: “a Hail Mary pass in the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl.”
Today DoorDash owns 66% market share. Uber Eats sits at 27%. Grubhub, the original market leader, collapsed to under 10%.
What Tony’s really teaching here: the incumbents’ spreadsheets weren’t wrong. Cities did have better network density. The error was assuming the whole market wanted the same thing.
60% of Americans live in suburban areas. The incumbents built for 40% of the country and called it “the market.“
tweet
RT @aakashgupta: Everyone repeats “don’t compete on their territory” without understanding what Tony actually did.
DoorDash launched in 2013. Grubhub had been operating since 2004. Uber Eats started in 2014 with Uber’s existing driver network, brand recognition, and SoftBank’s billions.
The conventional wisdom said: build network density first. That meant cities. Higher order volume. More restaurants per square mile. Faster delivery times. Better unit economics on paper.
So Grubhub focused on major metros. Uber Eats leveraged urban driver pools. Every incumbent’s spreadsheet model optimized for the same variable.
DoorDash went to the suburbs.
The alternatives to delivery were much worse there. Customers were more affluent. Average order values were higher. And suburbs were home to chain restaurants that customers already loved but weren’t set up for delivery.
The math flipped: DoorDash operates in 4,000 towns. Uber Eats operates in 500 cities.
When COVID hit in 2020, Americans flooded suburbs, exactly where DoorDash had been bringing restaurants online for years. DoorDash’s business more than tripled that year alone. Grubhub’s own exec called it watching a miracle unfold: “a Hail Mary pass in the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl.”
Today DoorDash owns 66% market share. Uber Eats sits at 27%. Grubhub, the original market leader, collapsed to under 10%.
What Tony’s really teaching here: the incumbents’ spreadsheets weren’t wrong. Cities did have better network density. The error was assuming the whole market wanted the same thing.
60% of Americans live in suburban areas. The incumbents built for 40% of the country and called it “the market.“
DoorDash founder Tony Xu: "You can't compete against an incumbent on their territory”
Tony argues:
“You have to find something where they're not incentivized to do it (Innovator's dilemma)… and you have to find an area where you think you can be advantaged.”
For DoorDash, this was end-to-end delivery and focusing on suburbs rather than cities. The incumbents at the time didn’t want to touch end-to-end delivery because it was lower margin. Incumbents also focused on cities because of the network density, but DoorDash realized the market outside of city centers was actually the bigger opportunity because that’s where most people lived.
“Knowing where the market is and knowing structurally why that's different and why that might be difficult for a competitor to serve, that's pretty important. Now, you also have to be correct on that bet… [Our bet on serving suburbs] turned out to be correct. But we didn't know that a priori.”
Tony’s other piece of advice is that you have to be “super fast”. A key advantage versus incumbents is that they have to make capital allocation decisions across their many businesses. But you probably only have one product so you should be able to move much faster:
“Focus is actually really easy… You’ve got to build that one product”
Video source: @khoslaventures (2024) tweet
Offshore
Photo
Moon Dev
45 mins
we are starting the private zoom in 45 minutes
see if there is still a ticket here: https://t.co/JbJdIbW2p9
moon dev
tweet
45 mins
we are starting the private zoom in 45 minutes
see if there is still a ticket here: https://t.co/JbJdIbW2p9
moon dev
tweet
Offshore
Photo
Dimitry Nakhla | Babylon Capital®
$SNDK Incremental Operating Margins (QoQ)
Q3 2025→Q4 2025: ~9,495%*
Q4 2025→Q1 2026: 39%
Q1 2026→Q2 2026: 124%
Q2 2026 report, more than 100% of $SNDK incremental revenue converted into operating income
Operating leverage😮💨
*Operating income flipped negative to positive https://t.co/fqv5uzK8Ez
tweet
$SNDK Incremental Operating Margins (QoQ)
Q3 2025→Q4 2025: ~9,495%*
Q4 2025→Q1 2026: 39%
Q1 2026→Q2 2026: 124%
Q2 2026 report, more than 100% of $SNDK incremental revenue converted into operating income
Operating leverage😮💨
*Operating income flipped negative to positive https://t.co/fqv5uzK8Ez
tweet
Offshore
Photo
Dimitry Nakhla | Babylon Capital®
The “May I Meet You” tour hits Starbase
Credit to Nano Banana Pro 😅😂 https://t.co/tq2E9EpLGA
tweet
The “May I Meet You” tour hits Starbase
Credit to Nano Banana Pro 😅😂 https://t.co/tq2E9EpLGA
@elonmusk We have the technology to reward loyalty: tweet
Offshore
Video
Startup Archive
Palmer Luckey: Build the future you want instead of arguing with luddites
“In general, it’s bad when a society turns luddite and starts to demonize new things . . . There are always people who have fought in the moment, and very few who fight to go back after the fact.”
For those who are worried that AI will ruin everything and eliminate jobs, Palmer asks:
“How many people said the same thing about automated manufacturing? The reality was that it took cars from a plaything for the rich into something that anybody could use.”
Palmer gives several other examples to emphasize this point. People were very against recorded music because they believed it “cheapens a performance” if you can replicate it for free. There were artists who believed photography would kill painting and art.
“We’re in one of those swings where everyone is questioning whether technology will make our future better, and I think it’s unfortunate because we’re on the precipice of so many things that have been scarce becoming unscarce. Things that have been unobtainable for many will become mass-market commodities.”
How do we convince people? Palmer replies:
“The thing you have to do is not talk about it really good. You have to do it really good until it becomes inarguable. Imagine if instead of making photography into art, they just argued about it on podcasts with painters? It would never work. You have to just do it and then eventually everyone will realize you were right all along.”
One of Palmer’s favorite examples is the Wright Brothers.
In 1903, the New York Times predicted manned flight would take between 1 and 10 million years to achieve, in an article titled “Flying Machines Which Do Not Fly.”
Only nine weeks later, the Wright Brothers achieved manned flight.
“Imagine if the Wright Brothers, instead of building their flying machine, had gone to argue with this guy,” Palmer jokes. “At some point you have to say they’re wrong about our future and we just need to build that future.”
Video source: @OffTopicJP (2025)
tweet
Palmer Luckey: Build the future you want instead of arguing with luddites
“In general, it’s bad when a society turns luddite and starts to demonize new things . . . There are always people who have fought in the moment, and very few who fight to go back after the fact.”
For those who are worried that AI will ruin everything and eliminate jobs, Palmer asks:
“How many people said the same thing about automated manufacturing? The reality was that it took cars from a plaything for the rich into something that anybody could use.”
Palmer gives several other examples to emphasize this point. People were very against recorded music because they believed it “cheapens a performance” if you can replicate it for free. There were artists who believed photography would kill painting and art.
“We’re in one of those swings where everyone is questioning whether technology will make our future better, and I think it’s unfortunate because we’re on the precipice of so many things that have been scarce becoming unscarce. Things that have been unobtainable for many will become mass-market commodities.”
How do we convince people? Palmer replies:
“The thing you have to do is not talk about it really good. You have to do it really good until it becomes inarguable. Imagine if instead of making photography into art, they just argued about it on podcasts with painters? It would never work. You have to just do it and then eventually everyone will realize you were right all along.”
One of Palmer’s favorite examples is the Wright Brothers.
In 1903, the New York Times predicted manned flight would take between 1 and 10 million years to achieve, in an article titled “Flying Machines Which Do Not Fly.”
Only nine weeks later, the Wright Brothers achieved manned flight.
“Imagine if the Wright Brothers, instead of building their flying machine, had gone to argue with this guy,” Palmer jokes. “At some point you have to say they’re wrong about our future and we just need to build that future.”
Video source: @OffTopicJP (2025)
tweet
Offshore
Photo
Dimitry Nakhla | Babylon Capital®
RT @DimitryNakhla: “ $MSFT has large margin of safety at $420💵, where I can reasonably expect ~13% CAGR while assuming a more conservative 25x ” https://t.co/5rGIiHiHa1
A quality valuation analysis on $MSFT 🧘🏽♂️
•NTM P/E Ratio: 27.29x
•3-Year Mean: 30.51x
•NTM FCF Yield: 2.09%
•3-Year Mean: 2.46%
As you can see, $MSFT appears to be trading below fair value on a forward earnings basis
Going forward, investors can expect to receive ~12% MORE in earnings per share & ~18% LESS in FCF per share🧠***
Before we get into valuation, let’s take a look at why $MSFT is a super business
BALANCE SHEET✅
•Cash & Equivalents: $102.01B
•Long-Term Debt: $35.38B
$MSFT has an excellent balance sheet, an AAA S&P Credit Rating & 58x FFO Interest Coverage Ratio
RETURN ON CAPITAL✅
•2021: 31.1%
•2022: 34.0%
•2023: 30.9%
•2024: 29.7%
•2025: 28.0%
RETURN ON EQUITY✅
•2021: 47.1%
•2022: 47.2%
•2023: 38.8%
•2024: 37.1%
•2025: 33.3%
$MSFT has strong return metrics, highlighting the financial efficiency of the business
REVENUE✅
•2021: $168.09B
•2026E: $326.83B
•CAGR: 14.22%
FREE CASH FLOW🆗*
•2021: $56.12B
•2026E: $75.05B
•CAGR: 5.98%
*This is largely due to heavy AI-related reinvestment — current 2028 FCF estimate $116.45B — worth noting operating cash flow increases underscore $MSFT efficient AI infrastructure scaling validating high ROI-potential
NORMALIZED EPS✅
•2021: $7.97
•2026E: $16.26
•CAGR: 15.32%
SHARE BUYBACKS✅
•2016 Shares Outstanding: 8.01B
•LTM Shares Outstanding: 7.46B
By reducing its shares outstanding ~7%, $MSFT increased its EPS by ~8% (assuming 0 growth)
MARGINS✅
•LTM Gross Margins: 68.8%
•LTM Operating Margins: 46.3%
•LTM Net Income Margins: 35.7%
PAID DIVIDENDS✅
•2015: $1.24
•2025: $3.32
•CAGR: 10.34%
***NOW TO VALUATION 🧠
As stated above, investors can expect to receive ~12% MORE in EPS & ~18% LESS in FCF per share
Using Benjamin Graham’s 2G rule of thumb, $MSFT has to grow earnings at a 13.65% CAGR over the next several years to justify its valuation
Today, analysts anticipate 2026 - 2028 EPS growth over the next few years to be more than the (13.65%) required growth rate:
2026E: $16.26 (19% YoY) *FY Jun
2027E: $18.75 (15% YoY)
2028E: $22.31 (19% YoY)
$MSFT has an excellent track record of meeting analyst estimates ~2 years out, so let’s assume $MSFT ends 2028 with $22.31 in EPS & see its CAGR potential assuming different multiples
30x P/E: $669💵 … ~17.9% CAGR
29x P/E: $647💵 … ~16.3% CAGR
28x P/E: $625💵 … ~14.7% CAGR
27x P/E: $602💵 … ~13.0% CAGR
26x P/E: $580💵 … ~11.3% CAGR
As you can see, we’d have to assume ~28x multiple for $MSFT to have attractive return potential
At 26x - 27x earnings $MSFT has ok CAGR potential
If $MSFT multiple expands slightly, >15% CAGR
$MSFT is one of the highest quality companies in the world & is firing on all cylinders
Today at $454💵 $MSFT appears to be a strong consideration for investment with a decent margin of safety
$MSFT has large margin of safety at $420💵, where I can reasonably expect ~13% CAGR while assuming a more conservative 25x
___
𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐂𝐋𝐎𝐒𝐔𝐑𝐄‼️
𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞, 𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫, 𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐮𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲.
𝐁𝐚𝐛𝐲𝐥𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥® 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐲 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝. 𝐀𝐧𝐲 𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞.
𝐈𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐛𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐢�[...]
RT @DimitryNakhla: “ $MSFT has large margin of safety at $420💵, where I can reasonably expect ~13% CAGR while assuming a more conservative 25x ” https://t.co/5rGIiHiHa1
A quality valuation analysis on $MSFT 🧘🏽♂️
•NTM P/E Ratio: 27.29x
•3-Year Mean: 30.51x
•NTM FCF Yield: 2.09%
•3-Year Mean: 2.46%
As you can see, $MSFT appears to be trading below fair value on a forward earnings basis
Going forward, investors can expect to receive ~12% MORE in earnings per share & ~18% LESS in FCF per share🧠***
Before we get into valuation, let’s take a look at why $MSFT is a super business
BALANCE SHEET✅
•Cash & Equivalents: $102.01B
•Long-Term Debt: $35.38B
$MSFT has an excellent balance sheet, an AAA S&P Credit Rating & 58x FFO Interest Coverage Ratio
RETURN ON CAPITAL✅
•2021: 31.1%
•2022: 34.0%
•2023: 30.9%
•2024: 29.7%
•2025: 28.0%
RETURN ON EQUITY✅
•2021: 47.1%
•2022: 47.2%
•2023: 38.8%
•2024: 37.1%
•2025: 33.3%
$MSFT has strong return metrics, highlighting the financial efficiency of the business
REVENUE✅
•2021: $168.09B
•2026E: $326.83B
•CAGR: 14.22%
FREE CASH FLOW🆗*
•2021: $56.12B
•2026E: $75.05B
•CAGR: 5.98%
*This is largely due to heavy AI-related reinvestment — current 2028 FCF estimate $116.45B — worth noting operating cash flow increases underscore $MSFT efficient AI infrastructure scaling validating high ROI-potential
NORMALIZED EPS✅
•2021: $7.97
•2026E: $16.26
•CAGR: 15.32%
SHARE BUYBACKS✅
•2016 Shares Outstanding: 8.01B
•LTM Shares Outstanding: 7.46B
By reducing its shares outstanding ~7%, $MSFT increased its EPS by ~8% (assuming 0 growth)
MARGINS✅
•LTM Gross Margins: 68.8%
•LTM Operating Margins: 46.3%
•LTM Net Income Margins: 35.7%
PAID DIVIDENDS✅
•2015: $1.24
•2025: $3.32
•CAGR: 10.34%
***NOW TO VALUATION 🧠
As stated above, investors can expect to receive ~12% MORE in EPS & ~18% LESS in FCF per share
Using Benjamin Graham’s 2G rule of thumb, $MSFT has to grow earnings at a 13.65% CAGR over the next several years to justify its valuation
Today, analysts anticipate 2026 - 2028 EPS growth over the next few years to be more than the (13.65%) required growth rate:
2026E: $16.26 (19% YoY) *FY Jun
2027E: $18.75 (15% YoY)
2028E: $22.31 (19% YoY)
$MSFT has an excellent track record of meeting analyst estimates ~2 years out, so let’s assume $MSFT ends 2028 with $22.31 in EPS & see its CAGR potential assuming different multiples
30x P/E: $669💵 … ~17.9% CAGR
29x P/E: $647💵 … ~16.3% CAGR
28x P/E: $625💵 … ~14.7% CAGR
27x P/E: $602💵 … ~13.0% CAGR
26x P/E: $580💵 … ~11.3% CAGR
As you can see, we’d have to assume ~28x multiple for $MSFT to have attractive return potential
At 26x - 27x earnings $MSFT has ok CAGR potential
If $MSFT multiple expands slightly, >15% CAGR
$MSFT is one of the highest quality companies in the world & is firing on all cylinders
Today at $454💵 $MSFT appears to be a strong consideration for investment with a decent margin of safety
$MSFT has large margin of safety at $420💵, where I can reasonably expect ~13% CAGR while assuming a more conservative 25x
___
𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐂𝐋𝐎𝐒𝐔𝐑𝐄‼️
𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞, 𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫, 𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐮𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲.
𝐁𝐚𝐛𝐲𝐥𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥® 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐲 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝. 𝐀𝐧𝐲 𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞.
𝐈𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐛𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐢�[...]
Offshore
Dimitry Nakhla | Babylon Capital® RT @DimitryNakhla: “ $MSFT has large margin of safety at $420💵, where I can reasonably expect ~13% CAGR while assuming a more conservative 25x ” https://t.co/5rGIiHiHa1 A quality valuation analysis on $MSFT 🧘🏽♂️ •NTM P/E…
� 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬. 𝐏𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐬. - Dimitry Nakhla | Babylon Capital® tweet