We Study Billionaires - The Investor’s Podcast Network - TIP610: Mastermind Q1, 2024 w/ Tobias Carlisle and Hari Ramachandra

Starting point is 00:00:00 You're listening to TIP. I always love the quarterly mastermind episodes with my friends and fellow investors, Tobias Kyleyle and Hari Ramatandra. The stock I'm pitching today is Spotify, a stock that I own and appears to be competing in a terrible industry. But upon closer inspection, it might turn out to be a feature and not a bug. Harwich Pig is Disney, a beaten-down stock that seems to be making the headlines weekly. But behind the headlines is a very interesting investment case.

Starting point is 00:00:29 And Toby, he pitches Miller Industries as stock trading at single-digit multiple to earnings and where there's more than meets the eye. Let's get to it. Celebrating 10 years and more than 150 million downloads. You are listening to the Investors Podcast Network. Since 2014, we studied the financial markets and read the books that influence self-made billionaires the most. We keep you informed and prepared for the unexpected. Now, for your host, Stick Broderson.

Starting point is 00:01:01 Welcome to The Investors podcast. I'm your host, Dick Broderson, and today I'm here with Tobias Carlisle and Harry Ramachandra. Jens, how are you today? Good to be here. Great to see you guys. Harry Stig. Hey, thank you, Jane, for hosting us and good to see you both. We just chatted here a bit just before we hit record. And we had a discussion of should we go straight to the stocks? We're going to pits here today as we'll talk about the overall stock market. And I know that, like, as value investors, we're supposed not to think of about macro at all? And actually, Toby, you also said that, especially here in 2024, you don't want to think about it. So I'm still going to put you on the spot and ask you,

Starting point is 00:01:47 do you not want to talk about it and why and why not? I think that last year was a very good example of macro sort of being probably more of a hindrance than a help because I thought that all of the economic data, particularly in the US, was very negative, really teetering on the edge of recession or in recession. And the indicator that I talk about a lot, the 10-3 inversion, which it just sounds like crazy inside baseball, I realize to people who sort of don't really follow it. But the idea is that when short-term money is more expensive, the rate on short-term money is higher than the rate on long-term money. That indicates that there's some problem in the system. And at the moment, that's what

Starting point is 00:02:28 we've seen. We've been seeing it for a long time. And that inversion typically precedes a recession. It's got a very good track record, even though there aren't very many examples. There are about eight going back to 1962. Every one of them preceded a recession. And it was basically the Fed lifting the interest rates at the front end of the curve because that's what they control, three month and shorter. And then the rest of the market, not following suit at the back end of the curve. So why would you buy long when you can get all of this short term money?

Starting point is 00:02:55 You just put it out short term. And so it tends to cause or precede, I don't know which. I don't know if it's correlated or causative of recession. And it's been more negative than it's been at any time in the past. and it's also been a longer inversion than any time in the past. The event that most immediately precedes the recession, though, is not the inversion, it's the normalization when it goes back to normal, which is usually because the Fed has achieved its end, the economy has cooled down,

Starting point is 00:03:24 and so they drop rates at that point. But the lag is like two years. So the lag is so long that it's that two years that follow that normalization when the rates go back down, that you see all of the effects of that. inversion flow through the economy. And so we just haven't seen any of those effects yet. We still are inverted. It looked like we were normalizing last year, but that was, this is really, really insight. Nobody needs to know any of this stuff, but this was because the 10 year was rallying, and they called that a ball steepener, which is a good thing, but then it fell back down again,

Starting point is 00:03:58 so now we're deeply inverted. The upshot of all of that is that the macro picture is incredibly confusing to very bearish. And you add on top of that that there's an election for the president this year. So the news cycle is going to be an absolute nightmare until that happens. And so for my own sanity, and I had to look at what happened over that. So last year, I actually had a pretty good year in the market. Deep Valley had a pretty good year. I had a pretty good year. Outperformed the market. Returned pretty well, despite the fact that everything was so negative. And I was bearish all year long. And I thought it's probably, it's not, I need to explain the way that I invest, which is that I'm fully invested all the time. I've got half of my

Starting point is 00:04:38 investment life or more in front of me. I've got half of my life and probably 80% of my investment life in front of me. I think that if you don't know what's happening, which is the position that really I am in, then the best way to do that is I just buy the cheapest stuff and just let that kind of take care of itself. Because there are examples where the early 2000s, the macro was terrible, the stock market crash, but value stocks did very well. And it would be, it would have been a disaster if you were following the macro in the market and you were out of value because it did so well when the market didn't do very well. And so I think there's a reasonable chance that happens again. But I don't know. Yeah, great point, Toby. But one of the things that I

Starting point is 00:05:16 see in the market today is like back in say 2001, a lot of stocks were down. The overall P ratios on the index were down. We don't see none of those at the index level at least. and maybe that is cued by the magnificent seven and few stocks. So I think that's probably the point where people like you who are stock pickers probably will be able to find stocks that are reasonably priced rather than just buying the index at this point of time. So it's a very interesting time. And also your comments reminded me of what Stanley Drac Mueller said in a talk.

Starting point is 00:05:56 A year back, I guess he said recently, none of my gauges work anymore because of the Fed trying to manipulate the market now. The government has also joined in with their fiscal stimulus and stuff like that. So I'm pretty sure Stanley Dracamilary will be even more frustrated. Well, that's right. It's also the federal government is running deficits of like 8 to 10% a year. So you've got an incredibly confusing picture. And I can't unpick it.

Starting point is 00:06:26 But you know, it's terrible. You know, because I feel the same way as you guys. Being raised at the church of Buff and Amongar, we're supposed not to talk about macro, think about macro. And then whenever we meet up and we just start talking about macro, you know, it's just, it's just very difficult not to. And, you know, Redalia has this wonderful quote where he talks about that he has made more money from what he doesn't know than what he does know, which I think is also a testament to what Toby said before about, you know, if you don't really know what's going to happen, and let's be honest to say,

Starting point is 00:06:57 we don't know what's going to happen. Well, it's just, you know, it goes back to the whole thing. It's time in the market, not timing the market. So whatever your approach is, whether it's Tobias approach with finding stocks with the lowest multiples and then time in the market, or perhaps it's a bit more like Hari and I who are picking more individual stocks and not using the basket approach, like the principles in that case are still the same. Harding you drunk straws before we started the episode. And please go ahead and present your stock pick here for today. Yeah, thank you, Steg.

Starting point is 00:07:28 Yeah, thank you for getting us back to the track. And my pick today is Disney. I believe I might have pitched it in the show sometime in the past, but I was tempted to bring it back in because of the recent events in the past one year. Disney is one of those talks that I have been following for a long time because I have two kids and we go to Disneyland at least once a year. So it's almost like a scuttlebut investment for me because I see their product. My kids are watching Disney Plus channel most of the time.

Starting point is 00:08:05 It's one streaming service. It's almost like a ransomware for me. I can't cancel it for the peace of mind. So I thought it might be a good pick from the perspective of the recent changes. Bob Iger is back for people who are not following Disney from a stock perspective. Disney went through a lot of turmoil, especially during the COVID. That's around the point when Balwa Hagar decided to retire and pass it on to a news ego, Cheapak, and COVID hit their parks to catch it obviously because nobody was

Starting point is 00:08:43 going anywhere. We had shutdowns everywhere. They had to shut down their parks, so their revenues kind of stopped flowing. Suddenly, at the same time, movie theaters were. closing down because of COVID. So business business is like mainly three or four pillars, as you can see. One is their entertainment business, which is their studio businesses, which turn out movies or episodes, animation as well as full feature movies.

Starting point is 00:09:16 Then they have their theme parks and experiences, as they call it, which is their crews, their theme parks and their hotels. and then they have their television business, the cable television business, and then now they're investing a lot in their new streaming direct-to-consumer business. So they're like four pillars. And during COVID, except for their television

Starting point is 00:09:38 and direct-to-consumer business, everything else was pretty much shut down. So what happened was, as a result, in 2020, their cash flows and then their revenue, everything took and hit to the point where their cash flow, where free cash flow went down from $6 or $7 billion a year to $1 billion. So they were really down and out. On top of that, things had already been set in motion to grow the streaming direct-to-consumerant

Starting point is 00:10:14 business. So they were spending a lot of money producing content for Disney Plus, but the way it was priced was that it was not making money for them. So they were bleeding cash in that aspect as well. Now, adding to this injury was their battle with the Florida governor, a lot of other issues that they were facing both internally within the employees, outside with agencies that caused a lot of distraction. And on top of that, within the organization,

Starting point is 00:10:46 there were decisions made where they tried to centralize some of the decision-maker. So, which did enfranchise a lot of creative executives running each of the individual groups, especially in the studio. And this caused a lot of churn within the organization. I believe their CFO went to the board asking for the CEO to be ousted and Bob Eiger to be brought back in. And then finally the board decided to bring Bob Eiger back. So that's kind of a short history or recap of what has happened in the last three years or so. So this is a classic case where many things have gone wrong for a company with a strong mode. But why do I say it still has a strong mode?

Starting point is 00:11:39 Because they have certain businesses like their theme park business that even if you have billions of dollars, it's really hard to recreate the experience. I and Stigwood just talking before the show, Stig and his family traveled all the way to Paris to go to Disneyland. A lot of people here in U.S. make the trek to either Florida or to the Los Angeles Disneyland or Disney War at least once a year. So it's kind of a family tradition for many. To your point about the strings of the brand,

Starting point is 00:12:13 we booked tickets just before COVID. it. Obviously, everything got canceled. We lost our money and we are still rebooking to go there. So, I mean, that's how much you want to please, you know, the kids in the family. And so to your point before Harry about strength, like I have a hard time seeing, and this is probably just anecdotal. I have a hard time seeing which other amusement parks that have that power. And actually the way, the way this came about, this is not even for, you know, my own kids, I don't have kids. are for my nieces. And how this went about was that whenever they were born, they had a book like everyone could write in. And I apparently, because I unfortunately saw it later, was that I wrote

Starting point is 00:12:57 in that, whenever you're old enough, I'm going to take you to Disneyland, which my sister, of course, reminded me whenever they were at that age where we could go to Disneyland with them, which I completely forgotten, you know, it is what it is. And I made a promise, of course, we're going to go. And perhaps it's just because I have all these warm, fuzzy feelings for Disney. I don't know what the reason is, but I just couldn't think of any other brand out or in this category of Emusion Pax that I would do that with. So, Ari, I feel your pain. Could I just throw, play devil's advocate for a moment because I have a 10-year-old girl

Starting point is 00:13:31 and she read all the Harry Potter books and then read them all again. And because she loved them so much, she was desperate to go to Harry Potter World. And Harry Potter World lives at Universal Studios. and there's one in Los Angeles and there's one in Miami. Or there's one in Florida, sorry. I don't know where it is in Florida. And so she doesn't have a Disney princess who she loves. Because the last one that came out that she sort of connected to was Elsa,

Starting point is 00:13:56 which she regards sort of being something that happened when she was very young, and it's not anything that she's connected with. So I think that there is genuine competition out there in the form of universal, not so much in Europe, but certainly over here. And it sort of speaks a little bit to how important, the IP is, if you connect to the IP, then you've got a customer for life. And if you don't and it misses you, then they'll connect to something else. And in this case, it's Harry Potter. Yeah, I think no doubt that any mode is dynamic in the sense. It's either building or it's eroding.

Starting point is 00:14:35 And Toby actually brings up a very good point. And that's one of the things that I was just mentioning earlier that in the past three to four years, things that happen in the company, especially in their organization of centralizing some of the chain of commands, not giving enough freedom to the creative executives, has caused Disney in terms of churning out new product. And to add to the bear case that Toby just made, the original Mickey recently lost its IP, the Disney lost its IP for the real original Mickey Moss. Not the one that we are all familiar with, but the first one, which is the black and white

Starting point is 00:15:14 Wikimals that was created by Walt Disney. So they do need to continuously bring in new characters and continue to invest in their existing characters. So definitely granted. But at the same time, what I've seen is between age 1 and 7, it's almost like a default setting for most parents that they just take their kids to Disneyland. Because the kids haven't really formed clear opinions, but by the time they come to a teenager anyway, they won't listen to you.

Starting point is 00:15:50 So that's a different issue. But up to six, you get to do whatever you want. So you just take them to the Disneyland. But at the same time, a lot of us have grown up with Disney characters. I think our generation, as just Stig was mentioning, it's almost like Apple strategy of giving out Apple laptops. schools for cheap or free. So they cashed them and they were

Starting point is 00:16:12 and I think that's another thing that is going for Disney. But nonetheless, even if you look at revenues, I think Disney theme parks made around $23, $24 billion last this year, in 2023 last year, whereas Universal Studios made around $8 billion. So definitely Disney still is leading the pack. But there are risks that slowly that can erode if they don't continue to invest.

Starting point is 00:16:36 So agree with that. So that's one part. The other part is they are in a, the way I look at it is that is this a company that is in a short term or a temporary turmoil? Is it a value trap where it's gradually eroding its mode almost like IBM, right? Like it's on a decline. And my sense is I go back to Buffett when he talked about Disney a long time back and why he would, by the way, Bobfitt hasn't bought Disney.

Starting point is 00:17:11 So that doesn't really support my case. But still, I think he was a big fan of Disney. But my point is, in case of consumer businesses, to erode the mind share takes a lot of effort by the management in the negative sense. And I'm assuming that, you know, Disney by the change of management and the change of strategy, is setting up itself for the future where they can actually have the best leverage. If I think about Disney,

Starting point is 00:17:40 how they're setting themselves up. Today, their cable business is a dead weight for them. So I'm hearing news that they're going to get rid of most of it, become lean, but their streaming business plus their theme park business is a unique combination where they can establish direct consumer relationship, have data, even offer deals for their customers, bring them to their theme bar and form that vicious cycle

Starting point is 00:18:09 and then sell merchandise through their streaming platforms or their online presence and in TeamPAR that's a model I see which none of the other businesses whether it is Universal Studio or Netflix they cannot replicate that

Starting point is 00:18:24 because they don't have this two confinants to it but they had to invest a lot of money initially and sync a lot of money in fact to bring up Disney Plus scale it up. I think today Disney Plus fails as

Starting point is 00:18:41 number three with 16% of share with Netflix 24% and Prime as 21%. So they're up there among the top and they have a pretty big international presence which they didn't have before. So now they can capture more

Starting point is 00:18:58 hearts and minds and in many countries across the world the software of United States, one of the visible presence, apart from Coca-Cola is Disney. That's how people connect, basically. And they can really leverage that in expanding,

Starting point is 00:19:17 and they're putting in a lot of money. I believe, like, every year, $3 to $4 billion for the next few years, they're planning to spend on expanding their theme parks. And at the same time, if they can bring back that mojo into their studio, and be more effective and more creative and not just go on with sequels after sequels after sequels

Starting point is 00:19:41 of the same characters. I think they have a chance to really turn around. And all they have to do is today their free cash flow is $4.8 billion or so. If they can get back to what they were in 2014, 2015, of around $7 billion, which is pre-COVID with the, investments and streaming, stabilizing, with the theme park business coming back up online, with their experience business coming up back online, and also they're cutting down fat, which they have already stated and started. I believe their EPS used to be around

Starting point is 00:20:23 $4 to $6 actually. Back in 2018, they were at $6.26. If they get there, their P ratio will be like 18 to 20, which is a reasonable P ratio. Even we assume moderate growth for them to pay. And that would mean it will be one third of the P ratio today. So almost like, you know, at least two to one and a half times the stock price today. So today they're selling it around two times revenue. So all these factors makes me feel that one, a company that will fade away in the future,

Starting point is 00:21:12 my answer is most likely no, because there are at least based on my experience, and as TIG was mentioning, based on his experience, we still see this one to 10-year-olds are still hooked on to Disney streaming service, they're still hooked on to Mickey Mouse and other characters of Disney. And to Toby's point, for example, my daughter is hooked to Doc McStuffins, which is another Disney character. So they are churning out new characters too. So I believe that either they can be a very attractive takeover target at $170 billion to $180 billion market cap today, or they're going to be making really hard changes in the next couple of years

Starting point is 00:22:03 and coming out of it more efficient and lean with improved earnings in terms of EPS that stock market will reward them. And of course, that cut their dividends. So once they are in a better health, I'm assuming they'll reinstate or recover their dividends as well, which will make them more attractive. So from my holding periods are usually five years or more for a stock. So one of my tests when I'm deciding on whether to buy a stock is, am I comfortable holding it for five years?

Starting point is 00:22:38 In this case, based on all the factor I said, I'm borderline comfortable because there is a factor of uncertainty that some of these bets might not work out. But based on the model, I said that direct-to-consumer streaming, team park, merchandise and experience forming like a flywheel and creating that relationship. It's almost like Amazon Prime with their video as well as their membership service. They form a flywheel. I don't see Netflix or any other HBO Max having that kind of a relationship with their customers.

Starting point is 00:23:15 So that gives me a bit more confidence on Disney compared to other streaming providers. So that is my pick. But now I want to hear more. or a word from you guys from a financials perspective and a valuation perspective, do you think it's cheap or if it's a value trap? In terms of valuation, I think it's important to, and I'm looking here at the numbers, which I know it doesn't vote for a good podcast, but whenever you're talking about, you know, going back to an EPS of like five or six dollars pre-COVID, and right now it's trading at 93

Starting point is 00:23:48 at the time of recording. And so I don't think that's the goal. I don't think that's the, like, if you want to believe in the bull case of Disney, I think you might want to see it a bit different. So one of the things that happened during COVID was that they issued more shares. So they used to be like around 1.5, 1.6 billion shares. Now it's like 1.8. Also, they didn't issue at a good time for obvious reason that Disney stock was punished severely during COVID. But also, like, if you look at 2023, you have revenues of $89 billion. The numbers you were quoting before here, we had revenues of $55 million.

Starting point is 00:24:26 So it's a different company you're looking at now. And if you are looking, for example, at streaming, they have a lot of revenue for obvious reasons, but they don't really make any money. And so a big part of your thesis also has to go to, do we think that Disney Plus can be profitable and how profitable can it be? And if you're looking at Nelson Pell's, the activist investor who have taken a stake and you know, you mentioned, that at the top of your pitch and it's going back and forth and they're still like doing a proxy battle and it's like there's going to be a big blowout here and probably in April we're going to have the annual meeting. So he has through his company $3 billion in Disney right now. Mark have was $170 like you mentioned before. Evie 216 so they have a lot of debt. That's another

Starting point is 00:25:14 issue that they're struggling with. So generally whenever you have an activist and you're shareholder or you considering being a shareholder. It's typically a good thing. Not always. There are a ton of exceptions. That's not the case. But it's typically a good thing. One of the things that he came in starting talking about was, to your point before, cutting costs. And now they're cutting costs, what, roughly $7.5 billion, which was $2 billion more than the original target. One of the things that he talked about that he wanted to do was he wanted to get streaming to have a 15 to 20% profit margins in 2027. which is roughly what Netflix has right now.

Starting point is 00:25:54 And so is that feasible? I honestly don't know. I think that there are different ways to look at this. I completely agree with you, Hari, that it's an advantage that they can monetize what they have on Disney Plus in the parks and the way that that shows up in the financial statements are just separated so you don't really see it the same way.

Starting point is 00:26:13 I also think that there's something to be said about companies who have a core focus, which I'm going back to later for my pick, But can they be as good as Netflix whenever that is what Netflix is doing and has always been doing? I don't know. And I generally think that the competition in streaming is terrible. Like you're competing with the best companies out there. And it's very difficult. No, it's not difficult.

Starting point is 00:26:37 It's very expensive to produce the content. And you continue to need new content. And it's expensive to produce. And you're competing with others who are doing the same things. It goes back to, you know, the argument that Chalmonga has where he talks about, like, if you have a text time mill and there's new piece of equipment and you're supposed to get it because it will pay for itself. And it's all well and true.

Starting point is 00:26:59 But all the other text time mills are buying the same technology. So all the savings goes to the consumer and not to those with the techs animals. And so I can't, for me right now, it's a bit in the two hard pile. Like, if I try to extrapolate the next five years, like are the big players just driving down margins because they're trying to trump each other with, you know, more and more expensive content. I don't know about that. The parks are definitely fantastic. And of course, I have my own biases that we already talked about. It comes with a lot of CAPEX. But I still think that there is like, there's such a valuable brand. You have millennials who are now done to have more money. They have kids.

Starting point is 00:27:35 Now taking their family to Disneyland and had done for some time. You have GENC's where, obviously not everyone has kids, but it's a generation that will soon, significant more Hecats, and there's also a trend of kudalting, which I've just learned recently. It's called kiddolting, which is adult doing stuff for kids. And so I think there's something to be said about that. Now, at the same time, with all the wonderful things that we can say about Disney, there are some bad things too. We already talked about the debt that they had. We see probably with succession. And, you know, Marvel, the first generation of Marvel just seems to be, like, brilliant move by Iger when it we bought it. It probably was.

Starting point is 00:28:15 like the second generation you're seeing now, people just don't watch that to the same extent anymore. And they're not as excited about it. And they tried hitting a new target audience. And it seems like whenever you look at some of the numbers that they lost some of the core audience or perhaps their original audience were just more excited about Iron Man and Thor, the Black Widow, whatever. And so I'm not really sure how to read that. But if you look at the Marvel movies, it's not going in the right direction. So like I mentioned there at the very start, I said, I don't know. And then I got to talk like five to ten minutes and I still don't know. But I can say is that the retention rate for Disney Plus is 78% and 72% for Netflix. So

Starting point is 00:28:56 I'm not, I'm not saying it's a bad business per se, but whether or not they can't be as profitable as Netflix, it's still left to be seen. So those are my two cents. Toby? I think that Warren Buffett once said about Disney that it was something like an oil world that just infinitely renewed itself. And so you get this royalty stream. And that's a very, very attractive business model. And then Disney has created this infrastructure to really maximize the return from its IP where it has the streaming service. It has the movies. It has the theme parks. It has all of the merchandising. It has generations of people who have watched all of this stuff and who have very good feelings about Disney, who introduce their kids to it, start the new generation. That's that

Starting point is 00:29:43 infinitely renewing oil well. And so Disney has an incredibly valuable franchise that would be almost impossible to kill. Having said that, I think they're trying their very hardest to kill. And I think that the real issue for Disney is that they have weighted into the culture wars. And you're immediately excluding half of your audience, which I just, as a business decision, it's a terrible one, whether it does something to improve society or not, I think is moot, but the business decision is a terrible one. And I would prefer if they went back to producing stuff that appeal to little kids so they could continue to renew this. I don't think it's fatal for them at all. I think this is a short-term problem that is currently being resolved.

Starting point is 00:30:26 And at some point in the future, it will go back to being an absolutely invincible high-flying company. However, it's not there at the moment. It's stumbling at the moment. It's stumbling at the moment and they've they've they've they've sort of tripped over their own feet again and again and again here probably for about a decade here with you know they've got incredible properties in Pixar which gave them the ability to produce all of the computer animated stuff which is just table stakes these days but it wasn't innovation when it first came out and they've got the marvel movies which is great IP which connects to a lot of people you know it's easy to show your kids those movies because you know there's not going to be any blad they don't like the

Starting point is 00:31:01 debt you know what it's it's good stuff to show the kids and they've got other properties that are worthwhile. The problem that they have is they haven't had anything that cuts through and connects with kids for a very long period of time. But, you know, it's an incredible machine for producing that stuff. And all it would take would be one more movie that actually did cut through and connect with a new generation and then they'd be back to where they were before. Because they've got those issues, though, I would want a big discount to sort of a quantitative valuation before I would consider doing it. And when I look at it, they're pretty stretched on all of those multiples. And I think that the fact that they're stretched is just a

Starting point is 00:31:35 recognition that it is kind of an incredible property, but it's not kind of living up to its promise at the moment. It's a little bit under-exploited, and it's just poor management. I would absolutely buy Disney at some price, but not at this one, and I would want to see more progression towards them getting back to what has been their bread and butter for, you know, generations before or a very cheap price. And I don't think you're getting either of those here. I think if we went back to the first time Harry pitched this, I think I said exactly the same thing. The price is down a lot since we sort of discussed at last. Yeah, I think those were really good points. Thank you, Stig and Toby. I really appreciate it. I think I was loading down a couple of points

Starting point is 00:32:18 you made. I think Toby said it's like an oil well that Buffett said that that keeps giving. And that reminds me of the content that never expires that they have on Disney Plus channel, like whether it's Mickey Mouse or Doc McStavans, a lot of these shows that kids want to watch over and over again the same thing. You can't say the same thing about the shows that Netflix, for example, produces. They kind of become stale after a while adults don't like to watch the same serial again and again for weeks. And trust me, kids want. Like, you know, they would watch the same episode days on end.

Starting point is 00:33:01 and that is the magical power of Disney. And as you pointed out, stick, that's the, their attrition rate is lower than our retention is higher than Netflix is because many of us parents don't see it as a luxury, but as more like necessity. It's almost like internet or electricity that you need it for your kids. That's it. You don't even care once you have it.

Starting point is 00:33:26 And the second thing they're doing is that coming up with models, as you said, like, you know, are they making money out of this? They're coming up with models with ad supported. They're increasing their subscription fees. They're mixing Hulu and Disney and they are making bundles. So I think that's the other one. And then the final one, as Toby was mentioning, like, they went through this period of 10 years of Lull.

Starting point is 00:33:49 Reminds me of Microsoft during the bomber days, right? Like, they're really gone through this 10-year spell. And I feel activist investors entering the stock is a good thing. for this stock because the management was kind of complacent and they're not having a dual class of shares makes them vulnerable and they know it which I'm hoping will lead to an action so this might be a catalyst but I think this is one franchise I would love to own for the long term well said Hari and I also think there is something to be said about your point about a potential acquisition target I don't think it's in the cards at all

Starting point is 00:34:31 And they're probably like a lot to be said about whether or not they want to be bought up, which most companies do not, or at least not the type of companies like Disney. But of course, like you can make the argument that perhaps not at this price, but at a lower price, you have a certain amount of, I don't know if insurance is the right word, but because the brand is worth so much that someone is going to come and sort of like put a cover on the market cap. Because I think it's the least well-known secret in the world that the Disney brand is strong. And all the franchises they have are just very strong. So that's another way to look at it.

Starting point is 00:35:08 More about Disney before we move on to the next pick. I guess that's all for my side. Thank you. This was really good feedback. Really appreciate it. I think overall, what I conclude is that it's definitely something that I would like to own for the long term. but the returns I'm going to make at this price is still not very certain. Like, you know, would it be market meeting returns or not is still up in the year?

Starting point is 00:35:35 Let's take a quick break and hear from today's sponsors. All right. I want you guys to imagine spending three days in Oslo at the height of the summer. You've got long days of daylight, incredible food, floating saunas on the Oslo Fjord, and every conversation you have is with people who are actually shaping the future. That's what the Oslo Freedom Forum is. From June 1st through the 3rd, 2026, the Oslo Freedom Forum is entering its 18th year bringing together activists, technologists, journalists, investors, and builders from all over the world,

Starting point is 00:36:07 many of them operating on the front lines of history. This is where you hear firsthand stories from people using Bitcoin to survive currency collapse, using AI to expose human rights abuses, and building technology under censorship and authoritarian pressures. These aren't abstract ideas. These are tools real people are using right now. You'll be in the room with about 2,000 extraordinary individuals, dissidents, founders, philanthropists, policymakers, the kind of people you don't just listen to but end up having dinner with. Over three days, you'll experience powerful mainstage talks, hands-on workshops on freedom tech, and financial sovereignty, immersive art installations, and conversations that continue long after the sessions end. And it's all happening. in Oslo in June. If this sounds like your kind of room, well, you're in luck because you can attend in person. Standard and patron passes are available at Osloof Freedom Forum.com with patron passes offering deep access, private events, and small group time with the speakers. The Oslo Freedom Forum isn't just a conference. It's a place where ideas meet reality and where the

Starting point is 00:37:13 future is being built by people living it. If you run a business, you've probably had the same thought lately. How do we make AI useful in the real world? Because the upside is huge, but guessing your way into it is a risky move. With NetSuite by Oracle, you can put AI to work today. NetSuite is the number one AI cloud ERP, trusted by over 43,000 businesses. It pulls your financials, inventory, commerce, HR, and CRM into one unified system. And that connected data is what What makes your AI smarter? It can automate routine work, surface actionable insights, and help you cut costs while making fast AI-powered decisions with confidence.

Starting point is 00:37:55 And now with the NetSuite AI connector, you can use the AI of your choice to connect directly to your real business data. This isn't some add-on, it's AI built into the system that runs your business. And whether your company does millions or even hundreds of millions, NetSuite helps you stay ahead. If your revenues are at least in the seven figures, get their free business guide demystifying AI at netseweet.com slash study. The guide is free to you at net suite.com slash study. NetSuite.com slash study. When I started my own side business, it suddenly felt like I had to become 10 different people overnight wearing many different hats. Starting something

Starting point is 00:38:36 from scratch can feel exciting, but also incredibly overwhelming and lonely. That's why I having the right tools matters. For millions of businesses, that tool is Shopify. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S. from brands just getting started to household names. It gives you everything you need in one place, from inventory to payments to analytics. So you're not juggling a bunch of different platforms. You can build a beautiful online store with hundreds of ready-to-use templates and Shopify is packed with helpful AI tools that write product descriptions and even enhance your product photography.

Starting point is 00:39:15 Plus, if you ever get stuck, they've got award-winning 24-7 customer support. Start your business today with the industry's best business partner, Shopify, and start hearing sign up for your $1 per month trial today at Shopify.com slash WSB. Go to Shopify.com slash WSB. That's Shopify. slash WSB. All right. Back to the show.

Starting point is 00:39:46 So my pick for today is Spotify. And a full disclaimer, this is a stock I own and bought back in December 2020. I also have some questions for Harry at the end of my pitch about Spotify. And I have no shame. So now that I borrow a bit of Harri's time and he knows a lot more about tech than me. I wanted to, I wanted to be my biggest. and sort of like pitch some of the bare thesis from a technical perspective that's that's way above my pay grade.

Starting point is 00:40:17 But the easiest way to think about Spotify is, and the investment thesis is to think about can they get to a billion users, which is a goal that the public stated? They're at 574 million right now. And then how many of them will pay for a premium subscription? And the latest numbers are 226 million. And perhaps I should have started by saying, and I probably just assumed here that everyone knows for Spotify are doing, perhaps that's not the case. But it's a company that has three verticals. They have music, podcast, and audiobooks.

Starting point is 00:40:51 And you would typically listen through your phone. You can also use your desktop and smart speakers, whatever. But then you can consume the content like that. So if you are a premium subscriber, you have access to more content. You also generally don't hear ads. You actually will on this podcast. You also right now have access to 15 hours of audiobooks in some markets, and that's going to be rolled out here, probably as we speak.

Starting point is 00:41:17 The bull thesis right now, and this is for a company that's a $40 billion market cap. The bold thesis here is, do you believe that they're going to hit a billion users? So far so good, they're at 574. I would encourage everyone to go in and look at the growth of monthly active users. It's just up until the right. It has grown very, very fast. But then they also have a goal of hitting 100 euros in annual revenue per user. And that's very ambitious.

Starting point is 00:41:45 Right now we're between 4 and 5 euros. And you might be laughing and saying, how on earth are they going to 20, 25x that? And I think it's going to be quite challenging. Also, I would say that they're probably still going, like even if they don't hit 100 euros, they're probably still going to do quite well on the stock price, even if they're halfway there. I would also say, don't count out Daniel Eck, the co-founder and the current CEO. Everyone ridiculed him whenever he said that he wanted to take on iTunes. And, you know, he had no labels.

Starting point is 00:42:16 He had no cash whenever he said that. And here we are. He has the biggest platform on the market. So do not rule him out. So the market that Spotify is competing in is absolutely terrible. And I do understand the irony of me telling Harry just before that, oh my God, like they're they're competing with Amazon and with Apple to some extent, even though it's a much smaller platform. They're competing with the big tech companies. You don't want to go into that space, right?

Starting point is 00:42:45 So then you're looking at Spotify and they're competing with all the big tech companies. So why am I saying that? Well, they have by far the biggest market share. Apple music is training them. And then you have 10-Sec music. I don't really think you can say that they're competing. And also they're collaborating a bit with 10-7 music and have shares in each other companies. but then you have Amazon and you also have YouTube YouTube music. So those are the competitors. There are others, but those are the main competitors. And you generally obviously don't want to compete with the best companies, but I do think that there's something to be said about, imagine how successful Spotify has been.

Starting point is 00:43:20 They do not own the device like Google and Apple. And they also do not own the app store. They're paying a tax to the biggest competitors. And yet, Still, here we are with the most successful of all the apps. And so I think there was something to be said about having an audio first, founder and controlled organization. Whereas if you look at something like Amazon or looking at something like Apple, those who, and there are different stories to them. But first, if you're looking at Amazon Prime and you get access to Amazon Music, that's not the

Starting point is 00:43:56 reason generally why you have Amazon Prime. And you can also see that with the stats on how much. much people engage on Spotify compared to the other platforms because they're more verticals. And it's very conscious that even though they can, whenever they get their iPhone, they can get, you know, three months, whatever campaign you have on Apple Music, whenever they have Amazon Prime, people still use Spotify despite all of that. And they just say something about the lack of churn and the high retention and the engagement that Spotify has. So whenever you are comparing the number of users, I also think it's important to know that a

Starting point is 00:44:31 user is not a user. Of course, you also have a lot of risks. So if we can talk about that, I would probably say that of the competitors, I'm mainly concerned about Google and what they're doing right now with YouTube music. I'm looking at, I'm using it and I'm thinking they're doing a really good job. I'm looking at Apple and thinking they're not doing a good job. And why do they have Apple podcast and music in two different apps? And considering that they own the toll booth, why can't they convert people to their service? And I think there's something to be said about that. Also, one thing that we learned as value investors,

Starting point is 00:45:09 aside from not talking about macro, which we did at the top of the interview still, is that you generally don't want to compete in something that's cool. Like, you want to buy the landfill, right? You want to invest in a company like Toby's going to talk about later. Like, that's not a sexy company. Spotify, that's pretty cool, like musicians and concerts and like, all of that is cool, right?

Starting point is 00:45:31 And you don't want that. And Spotify spends a lot of money on being the best brand for millennials and for Gen C's. And Spotify currently ranks now as being more used and cooler, whatever that means, whatever that means compared to the other services. It's also really difficult to continue to be cool. Like that's just like, think of whenever, you know, we started on Facebook and we were, at least I can't speak for you guys, but I kind of felt I was. was young back then and I was cool. And then my parents started using Facebook and there was really

Starting point is 00:46:05 uncool. And are we going to see the same thing with Spotify? Are our kids going to use Spotify too? Now that the parents are using Spotify, I don't know the answer to that question. And so if you're looking at the valuation, I'll be the first one to say that it's not a cheap stock. And the stock has run up a lot recently. I bought the stock at $78. and 70 cents back in December 22. I'm doing the Not So Humble Bracken says that it's up 170% in 13 months, but who's counting? And I don't think it's undervalue at all. If anything, it's probably overvalued right now.

Starting point is 00:46:46 At the same time, you know, we talked quite a lot about Buffett and Manga on Reddit, which we tend to do here on our episodes. And Manga has this wonderful quote where he talks about that a business, like whatever a business earns on their return on the best of capital, that's the return you're going to get as a shareholder if that happens for a long enough period of time. It's not so much the PE you're buying at right now. And also Spotify, they're still, like, they're growing really, really fast. So what, like, let's just look at revenue. It's up, what, six, seven X and seven years. Like, it's growing really fast and it's up until the right still. And so whenever you're looking at, like, don't look at your, the,

Starting point is 00:47:26 the PE, like you have to make adjustments to that. And I think I want to come about this in two different ways because you're probably saying, this is ridiculous. Stick says that he's a value investor, and he says that you have to adjust the earnings. Like, that's terrible. And I think I want to use this analogy. First of all, I'd say you're probably right, but I want to use this analogy and saying that, and this is a chess analogy. So the novice chess player loses because he doesn't know the value of the pieces. But the novice chess play also loses because he is so fixated on the value of the pieces. And if you have played a bit of chess, you know that sometimes you have to sacrifice a rook for a bishop if it gains you the right position on the board. And so that's what you're doing

Starting point is 00:48:15 whenever you're you're adjusting earnings. And if you do it, especially if you're doing it often, and if you're trying to torture the data to make something look like an appealing investment, your head will be handed to you. At the same time, if you find companies with the right quality, you're going to get quite a decent return. And so let me give you, let me give you an example here. Let's look at Berksie Hathaway. So from 1962 and 1965, Buffett bought Berksie Hathaway at a price between $7.5 and $15. So let's say that you came in there as an investor and you wanted to buy, Berkshire Hathaway at $100 a share. First of all, everyone would ridicule you because, like, you're buying this terrible textile model and why would you pay $100 for that per share?

Starting point is 00:49:02 But if you did that in 1965, then you held on to it, you would still have made more than 15% return. And so you're very much buying the future. Now, all of that being said, this is not a new Berksia Hathaway. I'll be the first one to say that. So it is a bit overvalued. I'd say, perhaps a lot overvalued. I'm going to hand it over to Toby here soon and he's probably going to tell me that it's ridiculously overvalued and perhaps he's right. But before we get to that, I would like to ask you, Harry, about Spotify. Because one of the things that popped up here recently was that Spotify has partnered with Google. They've done that with multiple different things about billings and so on and so forth, but they're also doing now more with cloud computing and having

Starting point is 00:49:43 using Google's algorithm for recommendations. And I couldn't really figure out if there was a good or a bad thing. And if I can just sit in debate a bit with myself, I'm thinking that this is a $40 billion tech company. Why do they not have enough data to figure out what people want to listen to? And they're reliant on Google. And keep in mind, Google or Alphabet, they own YouTube, which is one of their huge competitors.

Starting point is 00:50:12 I don't really like that. for obvious reasons. So, Hari, how do you, how do you look at this? Oh, thank you,

Starting point is 00:50:20 Stick. I think Spotify is a very interesting pick because they kind of have been defying gravity in a way in the sense that company that doesn't control its own distribution, a company that doesn't produce or own its own content, they rely on others to produce the content and they pay for it. And as you just mentioned,

Starting point is 00:50:41 they're also relying on other, for like Google on technology platforms as well. So they're more like a broker in between. And I think their strength is the ability to identify the right talent, invest in them early on, and then reap the benefits later. So they're almost like the value investors in entertainment. Like they catch the talent early enough

Starting point is 00:51:08 so that they probably pay a little less of price than they would make. that is also reflected in their financial statement when you see in the past eight years or 10 years, they have never made profit. They're always negative. And that is what concerns me is that they're growing, as you said, impressive MAU growth, impressive revenue growth. Everything has kind of doubled in the last five years. But they're not able to monetize it to the point where they're profitable. That means there is this game they're playing where the value they're getting from the customer and the value they're playing to the three aspects, the content creators, the distributors and the technology providers. In between, they are left with nothing right now, basically.

Starting point is 00:51:57 How long can they sustain? The second thing is, like, for example, Amazon has built a mode where most of the people now, if they're searching for a product to buy, they don't even go to Google, they go directly to Amazon. So they have made themselves as the provider. Same with Google with a 90% plus market share. Has Spotify been able to do that? Things like YouTube and there are other competitors. And what tells me they're still not like a monopolistic toll bridge is that they're

Starting point is 00:52:28 not able to churn out profits. And that would be my main concern is that their dependence on, outsider factors. So their future is dependent on a lot of things outside and how long is this sustainable. And if I want to hold this stop for next five years, will they turn profits in the end?

Starting point is 00:52:53 That would be my main concern. Yeah, all good points. And I think I want to take them one by one here. So whenever you talk about the profitability, and this is a common strategy of these type of, let's just call them growth companies, which is not the same as it's a good strategy, just because it's a common strategy

Starting point is 00:53:13 because a lot of companies do not succeed in that. If you look at the net income, it's been negative since they're listed, not so with the free cash flows. In the end, they will follow each other by different tax reasons and write-offs and all kinds of things. They're the reasons for that.

Starting point is 00:53:28 So whenever I'm looking at a company like Spotify, the plan is to, it's a bit like the Silicon Valley approach where you're going to get really, really big. And not the same as it's winner takes all, even though the winner takes a lot. And then whenever you have enough volume, you start monetizing and you also start cutting some costs. And so whenever you're looking at why aren't they making more money per user? They're using a ton of different discounts right now.

Starting point is 00:53:56 And they're spending 13% of their revenue also on advertising. They have a lot of growth capics. And figuring out how much growth capics they have is a bit more odd than. than science. And that's why they're growing so fast. And they would need multiple additional verticals to take the company to much high revenue, which of course could potentially translate to more profits. That being said, and you might be saying, well, what does it matter? Like, just because you have a lot of users, you don't necessarily make money. And I think that's a good point. But if you look at the two most important verticals right now, you've seen a shift. And so,

Starting point is 00:54:36 Let's talk about podcasting first and then perhaps music afterwards. And I'm perhaps I'm biased. I should probably also say for full disclaimer, like we just started recently hosting on Spotify's platform. And we did that because as an insider, I can see why it's the best. And I don't want to be too technical why that's the case. And anyone can send me an email if they really want to know.

Starting point is 00:54:55 But the market for podcasting has changed a lot in recent years. So first, I will say that Spotify came out of nowhere. and they took the throne from Apple podcast in like, what, three years, like from zero percent and all of a sudden they were their biggest. And they were so much better. They bought all the best studios. They bought the best companies to do attribution for advertising. They set up the best sales team. They did a bunch of like, as an insider, I remember having a conversation with someone in the industry and I'm saying like, if I could invest in the podcasting industry, I want to buy XYC assets. And then six months later, but if I bought all the assets, I was like,

Starting point is 00:55:33 They have some really, really smart people behind this. And what you've seen Facebook and Google do with democratizing, advertising, for example, on social media, on whenever you're using Chrome, Spotify are doing the same thing in podcasting. And I probably also say music. Music is slightly different. And they're ramping that up now. And so if they have the best hosting platform, they also have publishers coming there. And they can then sell advertising to two advertisers that are sliced and diced.

Starting point is 00:56:08 So it used to be so that in the industry, people will come to us and say, can we advertise on your podcast? Here's $50,000. And then they will get our entire audience. And, you know, they might have a product that can only be shipped in the U.S. or whatever that might be the case. And that's a quite inefficient way of doing it. So all of this is bad for publishers, but all of this are good for, you know, the Spotify's

Starting point is 00:56:27 of the world. And so in step what they're doing is that they're saying, okay, we have a, 50,000, well, $50,000 is not enough. It's 100,000 and up right now with Spotify. And saying, we want, you know, males between 18 and 25 with these interests and in these states. And then they're going out and finding all of them for all the podcasts that are hosted on Megaphone.

Starting point is 00:56:51 And so just because you could access podcasts on your Spotify app, some of them are hosted there, some are not hosted there. And then for previous subscribers, they bought the best studios, so some of the best content you can only find. only find on Spotify. So that does not show up right now in the financial statements, but it's coming. And I know it might sound ridiculous whenever I say it's not there, but it's there. Whenever you're looking, for example, at the gross margins, there, so in the financial statements,

Starting point is 00:57:19 there are in premium subscribers. They're right now on 29%. And then they also have the free subscribers. And right now it's 8.3%. But you have all the podcasting. They disclosed that in some filings a long time ago. they put all of that in for the free subscribers. And so, like some of those margins you see there, they're artificially low. You have a lot of earnings power in podcasting. We talked about this

Starting point is 00:57:42 before. Podcasting is much cheaper to produce, and you still have the same scale advantage as you also have with streaming. And then with music, the power has also shifted. There is a quite bad show about the, there are the beginnings of Spotify. I can't remember with streaming, where it's host. it, but anyways, but if you do that, or if you read the book, Play, which is about Spotify in the early beginnings up until, I don't know, 18, 20, whenever it was, you'll see how it has shifted from artists or, well, I should probably say labels, having all the power. And, you know, you might remember everything that happened with Napster and how, you know, this Swedish dude tried to, try to set that up with his co-founder. No one wanted to talk to him. And now the platform

Starting point is 00:58:31 you go to that Spotify. And now the artists and I should say labels pay. They're still paying royalties. Don't get it wrong. But if you have concerts, if you want to sell merge, all of that stuff, they pay to get promotion on the Spotify platform because now it's the biggest platform. And so you do see a reflection of that to some extent in the gross margins, but not all of it.

Starting point is 00:58:52 And that's also coming. And so the power has shifted. And then you have audiobooks where the operating margins are much better than, for example, with music. There are different reasons why they can't go higher than with music. The easiest ways to think about is that you can still make them the margins wider, but it doesn't have the same scale advantage as with podcasts, but it's even better with audiobooks, I should say. Sorry, that was a long ramble. Going back to your initial point, yes, we would eventually like to see more profitability. I'm not trying to argue against that by

Starting point is 00:59:24 any means. Toby? What Spotify has achieved is very impressive. When you look at the growth in their revenues. It is extraordinary. It marches up every year at a very good clip. The problem is that none of it falls to the bottom line. The response to that is, well, they're reinvesting for the future because this is a very competitive space. And if they reinvest and they win this space, then they'll be able to switch on all of that sort of profitability, which we've seen other companies do. So Amazon did the same thing. In that instance, then, you need to look at competition that they're up against.

Starting point is 01:00:00 And it's ferocious competition in the form of Apple and Google with YouTube. And so they are very deep-pocketed competitors. And they'd be able to compete for a very long time. They're able to lose money in various segments because they have so much money. So it's not guaranteed that Spotify gets to that position. Now, the response might be, well, they have been doing very well in the vertical that they're in, despite the fact that they have this. competition there and it's sort of proof that they are able to compete and to out compete.

Starting point is 01:00:33 And I think it's a very good argument. And I think it's probably likely that Spotify works out. It's just for me personally, it's not the way that I like to put positions on. So it's not one for me, but I think it's a, I think it's a great pick. And I think it probably works out. And probably one of those ones that when it's a 40 something billion dollar company now, when it's a 400 billion dollar company, I'll be kicking myself. Well, for what it's worth, Toby, I, I I don't remember what the market cap of Amazon was at the time. It was a fraction of what it is today. And still everyone knew it.

Starting point is 01:01:06 Everyone used it. And I remember doing a recording with Preston. This is like back in the early age of TAP. And I was saying, how can anyone buy Amazon on this valuation? And so, and I've kicked myself so many times because of that. Like there was a lot of survivor, survivorship bias here, right? Like you mainly remember what you see today. And those are all the companies that.

Starting point is 01:01:29 prospered and you and you thought about, I mean, I don't know if I can speak for you, Toby or for everyone else, but you see so many different companies and perhaps a small part of you think should I be invested like thousands of times? And then whenever you see some of them work out, you're like, ah, I knew it. I should have invested. And then of course, you forget the 996 others that you also thought the same of that would have been terrible investments. So there was a, there was a paper that came out by Novi Marx and the paper was about gross profits on total assets, which has become a very kind of fashionable way of assessing how high quality a company is, the more gross profits you earn on your total assets, the better you tend to do.

Starting point is 01:02:08 And I read the paper and I built a little screener that would pull up for me the best company by total profits on gross profits on total assets. And the number one pick in that screen was Amazon. And that paper came out in about 2013 or 14, something like that. So he was right. It was a good pick. I didn't put it on there either. But it was interesting.

Starting point is 01:02:28 maybe I should listen to Mr. Novi-Marks. Let's take a quick break and hear from today's sponsors. No, it's not your imagination. Risk and regulation are ramping up and customers now expect proof of security just to do business. That's why VANTA is a game changer. VANTA automates your compliance process and brings compliance, risk, and customer trust

Starting point is 01:02:49 together on one AI-powered platform. So whether you're prepping for a SOC 2 or running an enterprise GRC program, VANTA keeps you secure, and keeps your deals moving. Instead of chasing spreadsheets and screenshots, Vanta gives you continuous automation across more than 35 security and privacy frameworks. Companies like Ramp and Riter spend 82% less time on audits with Vantta. That's not just faster compliance, it's more time for growth. If I were running a startup or scaling a team today, this is exactly

Starting point is 01:03:21 the type of platform I'd want in place. Get started at Vanta.com slash billionaires. That's Vantta.com slash billionaires. Ever wanted to explore the world of online trading, but haven't dared try? The futures market is more active now than ever before, and plus 500 futures is the perfect place to start. Plus 500 gives you access to a wide range of instruments, the S&P 500, NASDAQ, Bitcoin, gas, and much more. Explore equity indices, energy, metals, 4X, crypto, and beyond.

Starting point is 01:03:56 With a simple and intuitive platform, you can trade from anywhere, right from your phone. Deposit with a minimum of $100 and experience the fast, accessible futures trading you've been waiting for. See a trading opportunity, you'll be able to trade it in just two clicks once your account is open. Not sure if you're ready, not a problem. Plus 500 gives you an unlimited, risk-free demo account with charts and analytic tools for you to practice on. With over 20 years of experience, Plus 500 is your gateway to the markets. Visit Plus500.com to learn more. Trading in futures involves risk of loss and is not suitable for everyone.

Starting point is 01:04:37 Not all applicants will qualify. Plus 500, it's trading with a plus. Billion dollar investors don't typically park their cash in high-yield savings accounts. Instead, they often use one of the premier passive income strategies for institutional investors. private credit. Now, the same passive income strategy is available to investors of all sizes thanks to the Fundrise income fund, which has more than $600 million invested in a 7.97% distribution rate. With traditional savings yields falling, it's no wonder private credit has grown to be a trillion dollar asset class in the last few years. Visit fundrise.com slash

Starting point is 01:05:18 WSB to invest in the Fundrise income fund in just minutes. The fund's total return in 2025 was 8%, and the average annual total return since inception is 7.8%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, current distribution rate as of 1231, 2025. Carefully consider the investment material before investing, including objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. This and other information can be found in the income fund fund's prospectus at fundrise.com slash income. This is a paid advertisement. All right, back to the show. All right, Toby.

Starting point is 01:05:54 Thank you so much for the feedback on Spotify. Let's go to your pick, and I'll just preface this by saying your pick is trading a much more reasonable, multiple. So please go ahead. Well, I think that when I give my pick, in any case, everybody's going to know why I tend to not like the much bigger, more expensive companies where you actually have to be right about the business. So for my, my picks are always, and I think I always need to preface with the way that I invest, which is to say that it's largely quantitative. We're looking at the financial statements, trying to find a business that is cheap economically, and largely we try to sort of ignore the narrative around the business.

Starting point is 01:06:35 So I'm not necessarily looking for a bad business. I'm looking for a good business that is disguised or a business that is better than looks like it is in the market where it's trading. But this is a company where, and I would buy a basket of 30 of these, they're all 3.3% each. They're all equal weight and then they're rebalance at the end of every quarter. So that's the level of conviction that I have in this pick. You need to understand that. I've had it for a little while.

Starting point is 01:07:00 It does always meet my criteria. I hold it. It's still in my screen and it still passes all of our additional measures. The company's name is Mueller. The ticket is M-L-I. It's a $5.3 billion market cap. They have $1.1 billion in cash and cash equivalents sitting on their balance sheet. The enterprise value then is about $4.2 billion because you back out the cash from a market cap.

Starting point is 01:07:27 And that means that my favorite metric, which I call the acquire is multiple, but is otherwise known as just enterprise value to EBIT operating earnings. So EBIT operating earnings sort of the accounting equivalent of cash flow. The cash flow statement is just reconstructed from the income statement on the balance sheet. So I just like to take the number without the reconstruction. And then I compare that to what you're paying, which is the enterprise value. So it's under five here, which is very cheap. Price to cash flows about eight. Price to earnings about 8.5.

Starting point is 01:07:56 Price to book about 2.4. The long run return on assets for this company is somewhere in the high 20s, in the low 30s. So it's a pretty good business. When I said long run, I mean over about the last five years. So quantitatively, this is a very cheap business. Now, the question is, why is it cheap? And I'm about to give you the answer for that. This is a company that makes copper and brass extrusion. Basically, what it does is it takes metals and it turns them into piping. And then it has a whole lot of other businesses and a whole lot of other little products that sort of are complementary or incillary to that kind of piping. And so the way that they think of themselves, they think of themselves as being in three segments. They call the first segment piping. And that's sold into construction, new home. commercial, HVAC, that's 46% of their business. And the second area that they say that they're in is industrial,

Starting point is 01:08:51 and that can be anything from transport, heavy industry. There's a whole, their website has a whole crazy list of all of the things that they're in the spread of business that they're in is pretty amazing. It's from everything from like, they make the hose that attaches to the breathing apparatus for fire. They make pool fittings. If there's some industrial application that needs to shift fluid through a metal pipe, these guys probably do it. And then the final thing that they do is climate, which is again,

Starting point is 01:09:16 like that refrigeration, all of those sort of things. And that's about, well, so industrial is about 31% of the business and they have this climate business. Geographically, they're all over the world. They're mostly in the US. They're about 40% in the US, I think, but they're geographically spread really widely over the world. And so that means that they've got, you know, incredible logistics to get from manufacturer, distribution, all that sort of thing. It's a, it's a, you know, It's a business that's been around for a long time. It's pretty stable in terms of if you look at their long run history, it's been pretty good performer through good markets and through bad.

Starting point is 01:09:50 The big problem for them has been that, well, not that this is a problem, but the reason why it's optically cheap and possibly not actually cheap is that they've gone through this building boom in the States where basically everything has gone about as well as it can possibly go for this company because there's been a lot of new builds, which requires a whole lot of the stuff that they produce. And so that's gone into the houses. It's gone into all of the industry. And then at the same time, there's been difficulty shipping things. So their products have been favoured over all of their competitors. And this is the problem for them. They have this Chinese competitor who can probably

Starting point is 01:10:28 produce more cheaply than they can land in the States more cheaply. The question is, does that matter for the long term? Are we sort of seeing this onshoreing where these sort of things are, are just going to be manufactured in the States and there's going to be fewer imports from China, or is that process going to be made more difficult? Will China, in fact, come back and compete again with this company? Because they've had a few years now. They've had three years of pretty good earnings. And how sustainable is that housing boom?

Starting point is 01:10:55 Now, I think that those questions are largely unanswerable. The sustainability of the housing boom, if you look at the average number of housing starts since the GFC, since the Great Recession, whatever we're calling it, these. days, 2008, 2009, when the housing got busted, we sort of underbuilt housing for about a decade after that, to about, I think we were building it like half. Clearly, some of that was because we overbuilt through the early 2000s. And so there was some underbuilding through the 2010 to 2020. And now we're back into a building phase. I don't know how long these building phases last. There's some suggestion that we're coming to the end of it now. Because the home builders have been,

Starting point is 01:11:36 The home builders too, so you might remember last 22, Lumber went Cree, home builders got crushed, and then when they put rates up, it made new houses sort of comparably cheap to existing houses. And so where previously there'd been quite a premium for a new house, the premium disappeared because it was so hard to buy a house that the new houses were able to, they were basically able to buy down the interest rate so you paid a lower mortgage, which created this huge demand for new houses. So these guys were clearly a beneficiary of that. So they've been a beneficiary of the reduction in imports from China, from their main competitor and from this sort of big building boom that's going on.

Starting point is 01:12:16 And the question is how sustainable is that I don't know. I can't answer. I would just say that I think that the chances of this business going out of business or being a donor are very, very low. I think it's still modestly priced for if you look at its long run history, it has been quite good at surviving periods, which is one of the things that I, that's the first thing I want to know, is this a business that can survive through a tough period?

Starting point is 01:12:38 And I think that this one is. And then they've built up all this cash on their balance sheet over the last few years. So in the event that there is some big drop in the stock price, they have the firepower there to go and do a very big buyback. Now, I don't know what their likelihood of actually undertaking that buyback is. I've looked at the share count. The share count sort of dribbled up modestly. It's nothing egregious at all. It's a very, very modest sort of increase in the share count over the last few years. But, you know, it is an increase. It's not a decrease. and typically if I think a company is undervalued and it's got a whole lot of cash on its balance sheet, I'm always a little bit suspect when they're not doing a buy bank because it means that management

Starting point is 01:13:14 doesn't necessarily agree with me or management's not necessarily. Its priorities aren't shareholders. And I think that this criticism could have been leveled at the last company that I bought too. I thought that it was, which was in mode IMD. They had a lot of cash on their balance sheet. They seemed to be cheap. They weren't doing a buyback. So I sometimes think that's a little bit of a red flag.

Starting point is 01:13:34 bag, but then any of these things can happen at any point in time. They can make the decision at the next board meeting and you can have a buyback that you didn't expect and that that is a catalyst. And if you're waiting for that catalyst when they announce that sometimes you miss the move. So I prefer to buy with all of the conditions right for a buyback before it happens. So I think for me, this company is, it looks optically cheap. It's very cash flow positive. It's got a lot of cash on its balance sheet. It's a pretty simple business. It's got wide geographic distribution. It's got distribution through lots of different business lines and all of those positives. The negative is that they have some serious competition from China and they may have been,

Starting point is 01:14:11 their financial statements may have been flattered by the fact that they've been through this over-earning housing boom. That's it. MLO is the ticker. Wonderful. Thank you, Toby. So if I can just back up a bit there whenever you talked about capital allocation, I think that's a frustration that a lot of shareholders have. They're seeing all of this wonderful cash on the balance sheet. They're looking at a very low multiple and it looks like it will be such an obvious thing to buybacks. Sometimes because it is, other times because perhaps it's a cyclical stock or there might

Starting point is 01:14:44 be other things there that we might not be seeing. And one of the things that I found helpful is just simply been to go through the earnings calls. And very often the analysts, even though there are sometimes some ridiculous questions that are more or less, could you please fill out my Excel spreadsheet? like my model so I can come up with a new estimate for earnings. Sometimes, I would say quite frequently, they are asking about capital locations such as should you buy back shares.

Starting point is 01:15:10 And I think you can learn a lot from those calls just in how they respond. And sometimes they will give you your investor relation type of responses where they're saying, oh, we are always looking up for opportunities and deploying the best possible. Like something that's like so generic because it's just terrible to listen to. I also tuned into our earnings call and the show said that he were never under any circumstances by back shares, which makes me really really worried as a shareholder. Which company was that? It was a small Swedish company.

Starting point is 01:15:41 And I was like, no, no, no, no. That, what? Philosophically opposed to buybacks. Philosophically opposed to buybacks. And I was just like, that doesn't sound too shareholder friendly. And so I think there are different cues you can pick up there. And, you know, time is just very, very expensive. And if, if cash is not put best to use, you know, you're going to be penalized as the investor. Toby, I was, I think I have two questions

Starting point is 01:16:08 here. The first question I have is how you, how you factor in cyclicality into your equation as a deep value investor. Optically, stocks that look to be very cheap can be very expensive based on where they are in the cycle. So on a forward basis, like that multiple would be crazy, but whenever you're looking at traveling 12 months, it looks really interesting. So how are you factoring that in since you were so quantitative in your assessment? I have this sort of, I do have a somewhat philosophical answer for you. There's the nihilist answer where you say, I know nothing about what the future looks like. And if I put together a portfolio of low multiple stocks and I put together a portfolio of high multiple stocks, if I then randomize their performance over the next 12 months,

Starting point is 01:16:55 your expectation would be that the randomized portfolio of low multiple stocks would randomize up to the mean of the population and the randomized portfolio of expensive stocks would randomize down to the median of the population. And so if you think about what that means, it means that the cheap portfolios are getting more expensive, they're going up, the expensive portfolios are going down, they're getting cheaper. And it's not knowable which of those stocks is going to do what, because I just said, definitionally, we defined in this little thought experiment, they're all going to be randomized completely. It's not quite as nihilistic as that in practice, because there are

Starting point is 01:17:35 some factors that we know that have some explanatory ability sort of over as many as five years. So value is the one that has the most explanatory power. There are others. And over a long period of time, I have built a model that includes all of these things. And one of them we can look at is return and invested assets is a mean reverting series. But, It is a slowly mean reverting series. And so we can have a, I can look at a period of years, so say five years, what's been the average return on invested capital over the last five years. And clearly in a case like this, it's going to be flattered because it's done pretty well

Starting point is 01:18:10 over the last three. And then I can use that to say that this has probably got, if the return on assets comes down a little bit, which I expect, it's still too cheap for the multiple where it's trading. And so what I would expect is that the return on assets comes down. but the multiple does tend to expand. And that's basically the experience that you have. If you did a scientific experiment and you looked at stocks, this is what tends to happen. The more expensive stocks do in fact deliver on their promise of earnings growth, but the multiple contracts.

Starting point is 01:18:39 Value stocks tend to deliver on their sort of promise of being terrible businesses, and the business does tend to do a little bit worse over the holding period, but the multiple expands because the multiple is so low. And so the way that I capture that phenomenon in my portfolios that I build these portfolios that sort of meet those criteria. And then I don't interfere with it very much. And I try to do it across an entire portfolio because I know that in any given instance, so MLI, the problems for MLI as I have described them may be exactly what happens for MLI over the next few years that they were over-earning because there was a housing boom

Starting point is 01:19:16 in the States. And their biggest competitor was unable to land in the US and compete with them. And when they're able to land and compete and the building goes away, all of that sort of unusual profitability that they have disappears. That's an entirely plausible scenario. But having said that, every single time I put these portfolios together, I look at the stocks that are in these portfolios. And a good example, a great example is the one that I just gave before. And I did this in real time because I have my own podcast where I was talking about why was I buying the housing stocks in late 2021? And knowing that, you know, we may have

Starting point is 01:19:51 been going into a recession, we may have been going into this period of time where, it was likely that housing was going to not do very well. And they all looked pretty beaten up because lumber had been so expensive. And what happened was just something that was unforeseeable that when the Federal Reserve increased interest rates the way that they did, the home builders were massive beneficiaries of that. And not in a million years, but I have guessed that that was the way that was going to work out. But it was the case.

Starting point is 01:20:17 And so for a period of about 18 months, the home builders have just run incredibly. And anybody who's taken those positions off has sort of regretted it because they've really gone from strength to strength. They can't go on forever, but it has gone on for much, much longer than anybody thought it could possibly go on. And that tends to be one of the ideas that I've really come to understand about the stock market is a lot of things go on for much, much longer than you think they can possibly go on for. And so I try to approach the problem is I really don't know.

Starting point is 01:20:43 I'm very open-minded about what a business can do. And I try to just, I pick businesses, I pick little stocks based on things that I know that have worked in the past. And if the future looks like the past, and there's no guarantee, but you know, for most of my life, the future has looked a lot like the, the near future looks like the recent past in any case. These stocks should do pretty well and should outperform. And so that's been that the experience for value investors forever, basically, is that you're buying these companies that everybody's like, why are you touching this thing? There's good reasons not to own this thing and that's why it's cheap. And for some reason, that sort of cognitive bias, our collective

Starting point is 01:21:24 cognitive bias that is built into the market creates these opportunities that the only way that you can exploit is if you are prepared to buy these things that look exactly like this thing does where we know that there are real issues out there. But it meets the criteria that I also know outperforms the market collectively. And so I follow the criteria that I know outperforms and I try to ignore the narrative. Thank you for your response. Toby, it's very insightful. And I wanted to shift gears here a bit and talk about another perhaps a bit more philosophical question. And I'm going to constrain you by asking you to look away from your more quantitative basket approach and think more as a qualitative investor.

Starting point is 01:22:07 So I was reading the financial statements of Mueller Industries and realized that I knew approximately as much about cover pipes going into the financial statements as after that. And it reminded me of the conversation I had with a friend here in the stock investing space. And I sent him a stock pick some time ago. And it was frankly Covey that I bought into. And we also discussed that pick here on the show. And he said to me, like, are using the product yourself? And I said, I'm not. And then he was, he was completely disregarding. Well, if you're not using the product itself, Like, that was his filter. Like, he would only, he would only want to hear from stock investors who also use the product

Starting point is 01:22:48 because they would give them more insights. And I'm not the one to question that's necessarily a bad approach. And I was thinking about that here the other day as I was reading the financial statements here of your pick. And I am probably using copper pipes. I would imagine indirectly somewhere in my life. But it's not like, you know, I was talking about Spotify before and I'm using it. It's also my, not just as a user using the app, but like my livelihood is depending on Spotify and I'm very much in the podcasting space. And so in its own way, it might give me a lot of different biases and perhaps it also gives me some insights. Who knows? And because here in the past few weeks, I've been looking not only into LVMH that we talked about last time. I looked into MS, which is just, it's one of the best businesses that I've, that I've ever seen that. And they're probably most famous for their Birkenbacks. And,

Starting point is 01:23:40 And I would probably never, ever buy any products from MS in my life. Who knows? But like, it was, it's a brand and well aware of. And whenever I look at their financial statements, I just got so intrigued. But I'm not really looking to spend more than $10,000 for a woman's bag. I'm probably not going to. You know the target market. No, I'm probably not even got to buy any women's back.

Starting point is 01:24:04 So, and I couldn't really figure out if that made me more unbiased because I could more look at the numbers and I didn't have any warm, fuzzy feelings about I love this brand for bags and not the other. Like, how do you look at that as a stock investor? Like, how important is it that you're user of the product? Not at all. So let me give that. That's my short answer. The long answer is that's sort of the Peter Lynch approach where he was saying, hey, you're drinking Starbucks coffee, go get a Starbucks. You're using Zoom. Go invest in Zoom. You know, use Microsoft, invest in Microsoft, I've used Gmail, invest in Google. And that clearly has been, that's probably been not a bad way of doing it over the last few years,

Starting point is 01:24:44 except that I think that I call that first order thinking. So Lynch would have then said go into a valuation and make sure you're not overpaying for this thing, or make sure your assumptions are reasonable or whatever the case may be. But I don't think that a lot of people do the second step that Peter Lynch did. Also, Peter Lynch invested through the period 1982 to 1996, which was an incredible ball market. So he wasn't a full cycle investor necessarily. and I've paid more attention to. My filter for who I follow in the market is how long they've survived in the market.

Starting point is 01:25:11 That's why I like Buffett. Best returns over the longest period of time. Walter Schloss, very, very respectable returns, 20% over 50 years, incredible returns. He's much more sort of, he wouldn't have described himself as quantitative, but he was pretty quantitative, pretty big portfolio, all selected on the basis of cheapness, basically. And I wrote a book called Concentrated Investing, where we went and looked at guys who invested over the very long term.

Starting point is 01:25:33 There's all different ways of doing it in that book. all got different approaches. There's nothing really that I can draw from that. There's this, there are many of these interesting sort of cognitive biases, behavioral errors that humans make, and there's a whole body of research on this. And I've tried to cover it in some of my books where I'd describe how bad we are at predicting the future, how these sort of simple little quantitative models tend to outperform the very best experts, including when the very best experts get access to the output of these models, which means that what the experts are doing is they're taking a model output that delivers a good answer and they're turning it into a bad answer

Starting point is 01:26:10 through their own biases even at that stage, which is kind of interesting. One of the biases that we have is this idea that as we collect more information about something, we're learning more about it and we're becoming more competent with our pick. But what in fact happens is we collect more information and we only collect information that agrees with our own preconceived conclusion about this stock that meets our biases and we ignore disconfirming evidence. And so what happens is we're not in fact becoming more accurate. We're becoming more confident about a pick that is less accurate. And so they show this two different ways.

Starting point is 01:26:47 It's kind of interesting. They had college students come in and pick which college football teams would perform the best of the course of the year. And then they said to them, they gave them a group of statistics and they said, make your pick based on these five criteria. And whatever it was, a number of tackles, a number of points, offense, defense, something like that. And then they said, here's five more data points. Would you like to change any of your picks? And they did five rounds of these five data points.

Starting point is 01:27:13 And what they found was that, and they randomized the data. So everybody eventually got the same data, but at the start, everybody got different bits of data. What they found was that people anchored way too much on the first data that they were given and way too little on the last data that they were given. And what they should have been doing was updating the entire, you know, you would call it like a Bayesian update where you take the information that you have, you take the new information, you factor that into the model that you have, and then your initial guess should shift by what has been provided with that new information. We don't do that.

Starting point is 01:27:43 Humans are way too kind of stubborn. We just collect the first bit of information. I heard different variations of the experiment you talked about with football. It was similar with the perception that students had about a new college professor. And then they were asked after, I don't know, a minute or 20 seconds. It was like, it was so short period of time you would believe it. And then they had an entire semester following that class. And then they were asked how they felt about the college professor.

Starting point is 01:28:10 And it was the same rating. Like it's just, we were just anchored so much to that. And so thank you for sharing Toby. It was quite interesting. I would love to give you a hand off to where people can learn more about you, Toby. But before I do that, anything else that we haven't covered here in the episode? No, I think that was great. Again, a wide group of picks, Disney, Spotify, Mueller.

Starting point is 01:28:35 Wonderful. Well, Toby, before I let you go, where can the audience learn more about you? I run Acquirous Funds. We have two funds deep, which is small and micro-domestic US value, and Zig, which is mid-and-large-cap domestic US value. I've written some books that are all in Amazon under my name, and I have a website AcquirisMultable.com, just got some free screens and all of our blog posts and podcasts and various other things there. Thanks for having me, Stig.

Starting point is 01:29:03 Pleasure. That's always, Toby. Hari, why can people learn more about you? Yeah, I think X or Twitter, Harry Rama is my handle. Happy to continue the conversation there. I also have a blog, bits, business.com. So look forward to comments, feedback, and conversations. All right.

Starting point is 01:29:21 As I'm letting Harry and Toby go, I want to mention that we have been repeatedly been asked to provide an overview of the stocks we discussed here on the show, especially for the Mastermind episodes. When we studied billionaires turning 10 years here in 2024, it seems timely to share my track record and portfolio. Clay and I plan to record a podcast that is doing just that. It won't be discussing all the stocks that we have discussed here in the Mastermind episodes, but the stocks that I put my money into. The very intention of the Mastermind episodes is not to invest in everything we discuss, but rather to get feedback and assess. not to invest in the weakest investment cases. Remember, invert, always invert. And at the time

Starting point is 01:30:03 I'm recording, I have 10 positions, including 5 million billion stocks. And I've talked about every single position on the mastermind episodes throughout the years. With that said, we're trying something new. And we want to use our website, the investorspodcast.com, to accompany the podcast more. So what I will do is to publish my portfolio, track record, but also links back to the specific episodes where all of these positions have been discussed. I'll be the first to say that taking on this project was a lot more work than I originally expected to be. But I'm almost done, and I'm excited to share my results with you. So stay tuned for episode 619. And we hope to publish that March 28. And with that, I want to thank you for listening to this episode of We Study Billioners.

Starting point is 01:30:48 If you like what we do, please leave a review or tell a friend about a free content. Thank you for listening to TIP. Make sure to follow We Study Billionaires on your favorite podcast app and never miss out on episodes. To access our show notes, transcripts or courses, go to theinvestorspodcast.com. This show is for entertainment purposes only, before making any decision consult a professional. This show is copyrighted by the Investors Podcast Network. Written permission must be granted before syndication or rebroadcasting.

We Study Billionaires - The Investor’s Podcast Network - TIP610: Mastermind Q1, 2024 w/ Tobias Carlisle and Hari Ramachandra

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.