Claim interpreted: In Q1 and Q2 2022, multiple established, seemingly stable companies would shock investors by reporting earnings/guidance where revenue was ~20–30% below expectations, and would explicitly blame this on unforeseen supply‑chain constraints (e.g., not having product to sell).

What actually happened:

1. Supply‑chain issues did hurt revenues, but usually by single‑digit percentages.

   • Varex Imaging’s Q1 2022 revenue was below management’s expectations because raw‑material delays prevented shipment of more than $20M of product; revenue was $199M, down ~12% sequentially but up 12% year‑over‑year, i.e., not a 20–30% shortfall versus a normal baseline. (fool.com)
   • Nature’s Sunshine estimated that ingredient shortages cut its North American net revenue by about 5–8% of sales, again well under the 20–30% range. (fool.com)

2. Several firms explicitly cited supply‑chain problems but still grew or roughly met revenue expectations.

   • FIGS (medical apparel) said that erratic ocean transit times and delayed product arrivals limited its ability to keep core products in stock and pushed color launches out of Q1, leading to revenue growth that was “lower than expected”—yet net revenue still grew 26% year‑over‑year. (mlq.ai)
   • 3D Systems’ Q2 2022 results “came in below our expectations” and full‑year guidance was trimmed, with management citing continuing supply‑chain disruptions and logistics as key reasons; Q2 revenue was down 13.8% year‑over‑year, and the guidance cut was on the order of high single digits relative to the prior range, not 20–30%. (3printr.com)
   • Celestica’s 2022 filings describe significant global supply‑chain constraints (extended component lead times, etc.), but also note that strong planning and demand meant revenue still increased; the narrative is of margin and execution pressure, not catastrophic top‑line misses. (corporate.celestica.com)

3. Large, ‘stable’ retailers did not show the predicted kind of revenue shock.

   • Walmart’s Q1 2022 revenue actually beat analyst expectations (~$141.5B vs. ~$139B expected), while EPS missed due to higher supply‑chain and product‑mix costs. (effifinance.com)
   • Target’s Q1 2022 revenue likewise exceeded expectations ($25.17B vs. $24.48B consensus), with the shortfall in earnings, not sales, driven partly by supply‑chain and freight costs and inventory issues. (thestreet.com)
     These are precisely the kind of established, stable companies Friedberg likely had in mind; their problems showed up in margins and inventory clean‑ups, not 20–30% revenue holes versus expectations.

4. If a broad pattern of 20–30% revenue misses from surprise supply‑chain shortages had occurred across multiple stable firms in Q1–Q2 2022, it would likely be prominently documented. Targeted searches of earnings reports and commentary from that period show numerous mentions of supply‑chain constraints and some modest revenue underperformance, but not multiple cases of large, consensus‑shocking 20–30% top‑line misses explicitly pinned mainly on an inability to stock shelves.

Conclusion: While Friedberg was directionally right that supply‑chain constraints would continue to affect company results in early 2022, the specific, stronger claim—that multiple established, seemingly safe companies would report 20–30% revenue shortfalls versus expectations and blame them primarily on suddenly realized supply‑chain problems—does not match the available evidence. The impact was generally smaller and more commonly expressed in margin compression and modest revenue shortfalls, not the dramatic revenue misses he described.

Therefore, this prediction is best classified as wrong.