We Study Billionaires - The Investor’s Podcast Network - TIP640: Investing: The Last Liberal Art w/ Clay Finck & Kyle Grieve

Starting point is 00:00:00 You're listening to TIP. On today's episode, Kyle and I dive into Robert Haxstrom's book, Investing the Last Liberal Art. Charlie Munger is famous for popularizing the use of mental models and pulling these key ideas from various fields and implementing them into the world of investing. In today's episode, that's exactly what Kyle and I do, starting with the fields of physics, biology, sociology, and psychology. We'll discuss many concepts, including equilibrium, complex adaptive systems, human behavior, the diversity of markets, loss aversion, the equity risk premium, the brilliant incentive structure at Lumen Group, and much more.

Starting point is 00:00:41 This episode is part one chatting about Haxstrom's book, and Kyle and I will be releasing part two of this series, which will be released on this Saturday. With that, I bring you part one covering Robert Hagstrom's book, Investing the Last Liberal Art. 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.

Starting point is 00:01:16 Now, for your hosts, Clay Fink and Kyle Greve. Welcome to the Investors Podcast. I'm your host, Clay Fink. And on today's episode, Kyle and I are going to be diving into Robert Hagstrom's book, Investing the Last Liberal Art. As I've gotten to know, Kyle over the past year or so, I discovered that he is just obsessed with mental models. So we decided to cover this book on the show, which goes in depth on how Charlie Munger uses mental models to become a better investor and develop a better understanding of how the world works. So before we get to the book,

Starting point is 00:02:00 Kyle, how about you talk a little bit with us about how you, developed this deep interest in mental models? I've always found learning about other topics to be fascinating. So even way, way before I ever bought a stock or anything like that, I was literally trying to learn things from other fields. I've always really enjoyed learning things about why people think and act the way they do. So I spent a lot of time reading books on psychology. I just, I found that to be very, very riveting. And then also I loved learning more about the history of just humankind and biology. So I read a lot of, you know, just books on history and books on biology and evolution and things like that. So it just led me down a bunch of different rabbit holes and

Starting point is 00:02:41 on different domains that I want to learn more and more about. But I will admit that when I was reading this book beforehand, I didn't have the framework that Charlie Munger has laid out that we're going to be sharing with you guys today. So I knew these things at a very base level, but I wasn't really trying to connect what I was learning from in getting the mental models and, you know, really cementing them in my brain and being able to use them on other areas of my life, which is what Robert Hagsman goes over in this book. So I was really excited once I found Charlie and Robert, and especially after reading this book, it just really helped me understand the power of trying to learn these models, but also trying to implement them and array them so that I could use

Starting point is 00:03:18 them at the right time and the right place. So yeah, I'm just excited to share all the interesting things that we learned from this book with the audience today. Yeah, so Hagsram, he pulled together all these ideas that Munger talks about. He has chapters on physics, biology, philosophy, mathematics, and a whole lot more that we'll be getting into. And just to be up front here, you don't have to be an expert in all of these fields. Munger talks about how you just need a few key ideas from each field and then learn to really recognize them and apply them to other disciplines when it's necessary to do so. So that's what Hachshram did in this book is he went through all these different disciplines and pulled what he thought were some of the key ideas from all these fields that we'll

Starting point is 00:04:00 be touching on here. One interesting point that Hagstrom made in the beginning is that we're all told to sort of specialize and get really good at one thing. So we go to school, we get a specific skill set, and then we use that skill set for really the rest of our lives. I know a lot of people that have just done one thing for 40, 50, 60 years. And we've become really a society full of specialists, which capitalism to some extent really incentivizes us to do. And this book really encourages us to do the opposite. To get a broad understanding of these different disciplines, and the best way to approach this is that Hagerm encourages us to first understand the basic disciplines from which we're going to draw knowledge from. And then second, be aware of the use and the benefit of metaphors. So

Starting point is 00:04:45 metaphors are a way for us to easily remember these mental models and make us more equipped to apply them to other disciplines. That's right. And so just going a little bit over the back sort of the book, it was derived from Charlie Munger's 1994 chat with students at USC, which was a really iconic discussion that was featured in poor Charlie's Almanac. So in that speech, Charlie discussed a variety of important investing topics that are seemingly non-investing related. But Charlie said, quote, you've got to have models in your head and you've got to array your experiences, both vicarious and direct on this lattice work of mental models. So since this book is on acquiring worldly wisdom. I thought it would be good for us to cover exactly what worldly wisdom is. So Robert defines it as, quote, it is an ongoing process of first acquiring significant concepts, the models from many areas of knowledge, and then second, learning to recognize the patterns of similarity among them. The first is a matter of educating yourself, and the second is a matter of learning to think and see differently, unquote. So there's really only two parts to the process.

Starting point is 00:05:48 You know, number one, Clay kind of will already outline this, acquire the concepts, the different mental models, just learn what they are. And like Clay said, you know, you don't have to be a PhD in these things. You just need to understand them to some degree. And then the second part is just learn to connect them with the world around you. And obviously, we're going to be pushing this towards investing related things, but you can literally connect it to anything you want. So when you look at mental models this way, it just seems really simple. But if it's so simple, why is it that so few people think in this manner? So I think that was the question that Robert Hags from wanted to address when he named the book investing, the last liberal art. So like you just mentioned, Clay, society sort of pushes us to

Starting point is 00:06:26 specialize because, you know, we can live an entire life specializing in just one subject and be incredibly successful while doing it. So the notion of learning concepts from many areas of knowledge is very foreign to most people. Let's say you're a chemist, then doing your job successfully doesn't require you to think about concepts from biology, psychology, physics, and economics, for instance. But this is where Charlie Munger would definitely disagree. Charlie concluded that solving problems is often hindered by specialization. So one of Charlie's most famous quotes is, to a man with the hammer, everything looks like a nail. Meaning, if you only really have one tool to fix a problem, that is going to be the one tool that you're going to use. But what if the

Starting point is 00:07:06 problem you were solving requires a drill, a saw, a screwdriver, a pencil, or a tape measureer? You can't solve all problems with the one tool, which is why Charlie thought the way he did. But Charlie mentioned in the USC speech that if you only have one mental model in which you see the world that you will warp reality to fit your models. That Munger quote I think is so, so powerful because when you're able to apply the right mental models to a problem, you're able to see things that other people literally can't see because they're viewing the way through just like a totally different reality. The best opportunities in the markets is going to be opportunities that other people misunderstand. They can't see it because they're

Starting point is 00:07:47 applying the wrong mental models. And when you look at many, the best businesses, I think they also have a way of just looking at the problem differently in order to come up with a new solution. That's right. And I just want to jump back into one other thing that you were talking about with metaphors there, Clay. So I really liked how Robert illustrated the importance of metaphors in helping us understand the world and connect one idea to another. So through the use of metaphors, we can more easily understand concepts by relating them to other, more widely known concepts. If we do this enough, we can really super-touching charge our ability to connect one concept with another. So I spent a lot of time thinking about how to

Starting point is 00:08:26 improve my own way of thinking like this. And it's been a pretty uphill battle. So I will be going over some methods that I've been using to help myself think in a multidisciplinary way in the second part of this conversation. And one other shortcoming that comes to mind of the schooling system is, I mean, this just really hits home for me. We're just like just told to memorize facts, memorize dates, statistics and all this stuff that you essentially just forget once you're, down with your classes. But simply memorizing something is really of little use if you don't know when to apply that information and knowledge. So what Munger referred to as worldly wisdom was having the ability to recall these facts in the right situation, or in other words, using the appropriate

Starting point is 00:09:08 tool for when the situation calls for that tool. Yeah, absolutely. And I think this ties in really well with what Buffett was just talking about in Omaha a couple weeks ago. He said that basically Warren wanted to know just whether things worked or not. But Charlie thought so much deeper. He wanted to know how things worked. So, you know, Charlie would be constantly asking himself why, just to get to the essence of the situation. And, you know, Warren and Charlie deferred on this because Charlie just, he really dove into why things worked and more importantly, why things didn't work. And one more point I wanted to highlight here before we get to the meat of the book. I also can't help but think about what Munger calls the Lala Palluzza effect. Oftentimes, the best businesses,

Starting point is 00:09:53 they aren't obvious because they don't just have one thing going for them. I think the most powerful forces in the markets and within businesses is when you combine many of these concepts together at once. It creates a situation where you have one plus one equals five because the combination of forces creates an exponential force all in the same direction. I wanted to share the munger quote that Hager had in the book here. Worldly wisdom is mostly very simple. There are a relatively small number of disciplines and a relatively small number of truly big ideas. And it's a lot of fun to figure out. Even better, the fun never stops. Furthermore, there's a lot of money in it, as I can testify for my own personal experience. What I am urging you is not that it's hard to do,

Starting point is 00:10:41 and the rewards are awesome. It'll help you in business, law, life, and love. It makes you better able to serve others. It makes you better able to serve yourself, and it makes life a lot more fun. So with that, let's dive right into the first discipline that Haxstrom covers here, which is physics. And I sense that with physics, many listeners hear that and just want to skip the show or go to another episode. But I believe Haxstrom intentionally included this topic first because by definition, it's a study of how the universe works. But like we mentioned earlier, you don't have to be an expert in physics to benefit from some of the key mental models that can be picked up from the discipline. So I had so many great takeaways from Robert's chapter here on physics. So I studied some areas of physics that weren't highlighted in this book that I think will have.

Starting point is 00:11:26 some value, so I'll cover those a little bit later, but let's just stick with some of the main principles that Robert covered for now. So the first physics-related model that Robert discussed was equilibrium. So equilibrium is a great introduction to the wide field of physics because I think it is widely understandable by everybody. The Robert wrote, equilibrium may indeed be the natural state of the world and restoring it when it is disturbed may be nature's goal, but it is not the constant condition that Newtonian physics would suggest. At any given moment, both equilibrium and disequilibrium may be found in the market. So equilibrium is this super crucial concept to consider when looking at the market. So if we, let's say we zoom out and look at the S&P 500, we can see that it's

Starting point is 00:12:07 got about 7.4% inflation adjusted returns of the last 100 years. So from this stat, we can see that the market will go through phases of equilibrium and disequilibrium. Some years, the market might go up 20%, other years it might go down 20%, but at equilibrium, the market is gently compounding at that 7.4%. So I like to look at this when trying to determine where we are in the market cycle. I've asked other people where we think we are in the market, and they usually assume I'm asking them where I think or where they think the market is going to be headed. But if you know my investing style, then you probably know that trying to time the market is the furthest thing away from what I'm trying to do.

Starting point is 00:12:44 Instead, I like the Howard Marks approach of getting a temperature of the market. If you have a general awareness of where we are in the cycle, you can have a better understanding of how much risk is embedded in today's prices. So when the market is in disequilibrium, you could argue that the prices are swinging widely up or widely down. If prices swing widely up, they're most likely to eventually swing back to equilibrium, and the same for when prices are depressed. As a long-term investor who is a net buyer of stocks, I would love to see depressed prices for many of the stocks that I own. It means that I can buy even more great businesses on sale. So I think equilibrium can be a really powerful mental model because there are always opposing forces at play.

Starting point is 00:13:24 play within the market. And I'm personally fascinated by businesses and how they price their products, for example, and how pricing impacts a business's performance and their sales and whatnot. So just look at my local coffee shop, for example. Let's say they started pricing their lattes at $15 for a cup. Then many customers are going to go into the shop and just walk out the door and just go out to another coffee shop. So the business sees these market forces at play. and recognizes that there's some sort of disequilibrium because their profits all of a sudden have plummeted due to this pricing strategy. And that same mental model, I think, applies to stocks. So when a stock goes way up and it gets to an egregious valuation, fundamental investors,

Starting point is 00:14:13 they look at their opportunity costs. They're not dumb. And they adjust to that disequilibrium in the market. So if they're holding shares in that company, they likely see better opportunities elsewhere in the market. And it goes back to the Benjamin Graham principle that the market's a voting machine in the short run and a weighing machine in the long run. And in the long run, the market naturally tends to reach an equilibrium, or in other words, it naturally gravitates towards that intrinsic value. What also fascinates me is when I can find a business that sort of defies the laws of physics. So you see some luxury companies that sell handbags for $10,000 or more in customer. are fighting to get their handbag or a company that's maybe in an unattractive industry,

Starting point is 00:14:59 but their returns on capital are consistently 25% per year. It's like, huh, this company's doing something different than a lot of other players, and they've found some sort of equilibrium that other businesses aren't able to strike. And the fundamental law of capitalism is that most companies are doomed for failure. The equilibrium or the natural state of the market it is that others are going to go out and try and eat your lunch. And because of that, companies always have to adapt or they're just going to fall prey to this gravitational force of capitalism. I'm also reminded of the Buffett point that turnaround seldom turn. And it reminds me of this, the physics example, that an object in motion tends to stay in motion. So businesses that's in a

Starting point is 00:15:44 decline, it's much more difficult than you might think for things to turn things around, especially within large organizations with many people and so many different factors at play. So another use case for equilibrium in markets is to use when the market has swung upward in price. So this is obviously just a great signal that the market is becoming much less risk-averse. And this means that as risk goes up, I won't say whether you should stay on the sidelines or not, but I think it's a very powerful thing to understand when people are deploying money into a market with very little attention to risk. So if you know this, it can help you avoid taking unnecessary risks like buying overpriced stocks. If we want to focus on equilibrium at the business level, it fits in very nicely as well.

Starting point is 00:16:28 So, you know, businesses rarely follow a linear line upwards, but instead go through some forms of cyclical swings going up and cyclical swings going down. So, you know, obviously there's extremes at this when we're talking about. cyclicality. So, you know, if we go to one extreme where let's look at, you know, precious metals, for instance. So when the prices of tin, gold, or silver, etc., increase, then these businesses that are engaged in mining that specific commodity often see these massive booms and outputs and therefore in profits. But since these commodity prices are highly volatile, these profits are unlikely to consistently grow at these previously astronomical rates. And once the commodity price comes down closer to historical averages or even lower, many commodity businesses see rapid decreases in profits and their cash flows.

Starting point is 00:17:14 So this is why I personally stay away from these types of investments. I just, I don't like those massive swings. And then if we go to a less severe level, all businesses are still somewhat cyclical. So one of the members of our TIP mastermind community just did a wonderful presentation on MasterCard. And in his chat, he discussed how both Visa and MasterCard have outpaced global inflation since 2008, other than in 2020 due to COVID. So Visa and MESA and MESA, MasterCard are among the best businesses out there, and even they can be exposed to disequilibrium. But the best part I think about equilibrium is how long-term investors can just take advantage of it. One of Benjamin's greatest contributions to value investing was the Mr. Market analogy.

Starting point is 00:17:53 You can argue that Mr. Market is just a manifestation of equilibrium in investor psychology. When Mr. Market is acting normal, he is in equilibrium. And as an investor, there probably isn't much activity needed when he's acting that way. But when Mr. Market decides to act out and offer silly prices and is indebted, disequilibrium, that's when we should be paying the most attention. If we know there are four sellers or some sort of macro event that is causing stock prices to go down, we should be jumping for joy as it means we can add to our current positions at depressed prices or run down our watch list to add companies that maybe we wanted to buy previously but just couldn't pull the trigger on

Starting point is 00:18:27 because they were so expensive. 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 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, 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

Starting point is 00:19:13 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

Starting point is 00:19:58 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 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.

Starting point is 00:20:31 It pulls your financials, inventory, commerce, HR, and CRM into one unified system. And that connected data is 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. 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

Starting point is 00:21:10 demystifying AI at netsuite.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 from scratch can feel exciting, but also incredibly overwhelmed. and lonely. That's why 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

Starting point is 00:21:45 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. 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 W-S-B.

Starting point is 00:22:28 Go to Shopify.com slash W-S-B. That's Shopify.com slash W-S-B. All right. Back to the show. I'm reminded of a mental model I've added over the past couple of years, and that's realizing sort of what was happening in March 2020. You know, ever since I learned that there's just so much forced selling by so many institutions at play, I hadn't thought about how really that was a state of disequilibrium in the markets and such an opportunity for long-term investors.

Starting point is 00:23:04 And Haxstrom also gets into the debate of the efficiency of markets. To achieve outsized performance, you're going to want to look for areas where we can find that disequilibrium. In Howard Marks, he's shared on our show that finding great companies is not enough. You're going to need to find great companies that the market doesn't view. it as great as you do. And you also have to be right in your assessment. So Costco, for example, is a classic example that is priced to perfection because the market realizes it's an incredible business. There's no debate about that. But it's hard for me to see how investors can earn outsized returns at this sort of valuation level for Costco. And the best part is that it doesn't

Starting point is 00:23:48 matter if my opinion is right or wrong as long as I haven't taken a position in it. What matters is that this equilibrium exists in the companies that they do take a position in. Yeah, so I love that example you just gave on Costco, because I see the exact same thing. I think Costco is a tremendous business, but whenever I just look at it, I run the numbers and try to see what kind of returns I can get, I'm just like, the price just doesn't make sense to me. I don't know, either I'm missing something or who knows, but yeah, I completely agree with you on that. So another physics-related mental model that I wanted to cover that Robert doesn't cover in this book is just critical mass, which I think is super powerful.

Starting point is 00:24:24 So critical mass is basically the smallest sum of something like an ingredient, an idea, wealth, anything really, that can create a self-sustaining entity. So when I think of critical mass, I think a lot about a business's self-sustaining abilities. As Warren is repeatedly shown, businesses that don't require capital to run are an investor's best friend. So I think if we look at businesses as these self-sustaining entities, then the ability to be self-sustaining relies on a number of different factors. For instance, a business that will die without a constant influx of capital would be viewed as a bad business by Warren Buffett. I think a really good example of this is just the original Berkshire

Starting point is 00:25:00 Hathaway tech style mill. In order for the business to reach a critical mass and do what it needs to do, it must constantly be fed new capital, whether that's new machines, new buildings, new factories, etc. If it's not fed capital, it just simply dies as a business. But a wonderful business often does not require new capital. It may require very little capital will run, have latent pricing power, or be run by an incredibly talented management team. In that case, very little capital was needed for that business to reach critical mass. So a very good example, everyone on here probably knows is seize candy. They barely put any money back into that business and they've taken so much money out.

Starting point is 00:25:35 So in these types of businesses, no debt is required and the business can just keep growing or maintain some sort of level of operation. But there are very few businesses that can do that. So if you find one, make sure you hold on for dear life. So turning here to the section on biology, I couldn't help but thinking about Poolech Prasad's book, what I learned about investing from Darwin, which covers so much on biology. The core idea that Hagstrom focuses on is evolution. So the process of evolution is one of natural selection, and it can help us view the market

Starting point is 00:26:09 through a lens of economic selection. So similar to Prasad's book, Hagstrom outlined how Charles Darwin, he figured out that species evolved over time and that each species was not static. It was very dynamic. So species with favorable traits would tend to outlive species with unfavorable traits. So we can look at companies in a similar light. Joseph Schumptor, who was a 20th century economist, he believed that capitalism can be understood as an evolutionary process of continuous innovation and creative destruction. And just like how species, you know, made these small incremental steps of improvement or decline even, companies, I think we can view in the same light as well. Yeah, so I just want to touch real quick on your point there about Pulaq's point on the pace specifically of evolution. So he summed it up so well in his book. So he said, there is a lovely fractal-like property to this phenomenon. It does not seem to matter if the measurement period is thousands of years, in the case of the bears that he uses in the example, or just a few decades, which you

Starting point is 00:27:16 uses Finches as an example. The pace of evolution speeds up over short periods and slows down over extended periods. So his points above here just speak to the fact that when we look at very short periods of time, we can see changes occurring. The market obviously is the best example of this every single day. We can see daily fluctuations of market prices and what direction our businesses or the market is trending in. Because we have this information, we feel that we have to act on it. But at the same token, when we look out, like I just said about the S&P 500, making, you know, constant steady gains over these long periods of time, the market just, you know, it's continuing to just do what it does on its historical basis. It's just climbing upwards, nice and steady. So sure, there's going to be spurts of high growth during euphoric periods and heavy losses during recessions and other shocks. But over the long period, the market just continues to go up. So my main takeaway from this is to be very wary of short-term signals. These signals can, very easily lead us astray and often the best course of action is just to stay the course and focus on the long term. I think it's also important here to explain the importance of a complex

Starting point is 00:28:25 adaptive system. And this is another topic that Haxstrom covers in this chapter on biology. So the Santa Fe group, they shared four distinct features of markets that make them just extremely complex. And these features all interrelate with biology. So the first feature is dispersed interaction. So you have a number of actors acting within a system and they're acting in parallel to each other. So this could be out in the jungle, all these animals and plants interacting with each other or in a economy. You go out and people are shopping for coffee. They're going an order and lunch and they're doing all these things. The second feature is there's no global controller. So although we have rules and laws, no one entity controls the economy. So it's controlled

Starting point is 00:29:12 by really competition and then coordination between agents within that system. So the third feature is continual adaptation. And I think this one is probably one of the most important ones. The reality is that the system is just always changing. Businesses are adjusting their products. They're adjusting their prices. They're making decisions based on new information constantly. And then consumer tastes, consumer preferences change. Just the reality is that everything always has and is always going to keep changing. The only constant is changed, and we have to adapt to what the market is telling us. So the fourth feature here that make markets so complex is out of equilibrium dynamics. So because the agents within a system are constantly changing their behavior and how they're

Starting point is 00:29:58 acting within a system, this leads to many parts of the economy acting in disequilibrium. If you think about it, if things are in equilibrium, then there would be really no need to change. So there seems to almost always be some sort of disequilibrium that leads to people constantly changing the behaviors. Just think about how the Fed, for example, they're just constantly changing interest rates every quarter. They're adjusting it up, adjusting it down. Their forecast is constantly changing and they're changing their behavior along with it. So each economic actor is really the same way, how we're always changing our actions based on our environment. And we can't predict how our actions are going to change going forward. So it's just a dynamic system that's always fluctuating. So after interviewing

Starting point is 00:30:44 so many smart people here on the show, you sort of realize how ridiculous it is to predict what the stock market's going to do over the next year because the market is a complex adaptive system. And people oftentimes create this sort of model in their head where because X is happening, then the market's going to do Y. But if X is happening, people's behaviors are going to change. are going to adapt in ways you really can't foresee, and that's going to have unforeseeing downstream consequences. Related to this, I'm reminded of an interview I did last year. It was with John Jennings, who wrote this great book called The Uncertainty Solution. In the book, he explained how we all just have this innate, intense desire to know what's going to happen. Humans just hate uncertainty.

Starting point is 00:31:32 It's something that's hardwired into us. So that's why everyone just wants to know what's going to to happen over the next year. I'm sure 50 years ago, people are still asking if they're investors in the market, they're still wondering, what's the stock market going to do over the next year? And that just is something within us that just is not going to change, in my opinion. And since that desire is always going to be there, there's always going to be people out there that try and tell you what the market's going to do. And even if we innately know that the direction of the market is uncertain, we still find comfort in listening to people that sound smart, because it gives us, you know, that sense of certainty.

Starting point is 00:32:09 It helps that uncertain feeling within us sort of wither away a little bit. So I just love that point from John's book, how, you know, uncertainty is just really a part of markets and we just need to learn to embrace that. Yes, that's a great point. And it's funny because market forecasting, you know, there's so much data out there, like you just pointed out that it's, it just doesn't work that well. And it's probably not the best use of our time. So this kind of just reminded me of one of my favorite Peter Lynch's,

Starting point is 00:32:36 quotes, which is, if you spend more than 13 minutes per year on economics, you've wasted 10 minutes. I found that really amusing. And I think a lot of investors see this quote and probably get a good laugh out of it, but then end up spending inordinate amounts of time trying to guess what is still going to happen. So Lynch further elaborates that nobody can predict interest rates, the future direction of the economy or the stock market, dismiss all such forecasts and concentrate on what is actually happening in the companies in which you have invested. So I've really take this idea seriously. And I try to spend as much time thinking about the 10 individual businesses in my portfolio as close as possible and spend as little time as possible thinking about macro events,

Starting point is 00:33:13 interest rates, bond yields, or whatever direction the stock market is most likely going to go. So Robert does a really good job in this chapter on biology discussing the Elferol problem. So this is a problem that is found out by Brian Arthur, who's a big part of the Santa Fe Institute. And so Elferol was a bar in Santa Fe Institute. So basically, the way, He looked at it was that there's this bar called the El Farol, and it's really fun bar to go to, especially when it's not packed full of people. And when it's really packed, when you're shoulder to shoulder with everyone else, not so fun. So Arthur says, imagine that there's, let's say 100 people is kind of the upper limit. So that's where it's not going to be very enjoyable. 60

Starting point is 00:33:54 people's at lower limit when it's a lot more enjoyable. Now he says, okay, let's assume El Farol releases attendance of the amount of people that are coming into the establishment, each of each day. So now people who like the Elferol bar can create their own models off of the attendance to figure out when the bar is going to be less crowded. So given how many people are interested in optimizing their experience at Elferol, there's going to be a number of different ways and different models that people use to really figure out when they should go to Elferol. Some people might correlate attendance to the weather patterns. Others might look at, you know, the previous week's attendance and others might take daily averages over the last several weeks. Who knows?

Starting point is 00:34:33 there's tons and tons of different models that you could use. But the problem here is that there's going to be certain days that everyone knows are less attended. And obviously, if everyone knows that they're less attended, then that means that the next week, everyone's going to show up that day and it's no longer going to be a less attended day. The point is that, you know, these models are going to just be incredibly volatile, and the L-Farol is just going to adapt. So you're never going to actually be able to get a constant, steady answer.

Starting point is 00:35:01 It's just so that's why he used this problem, kind of a really good representation of complex adaptive systems. I'm also reminded that if there's something so basic in the market that can be recognized as a disequilibrium, I thought about what our member said in the MasterCard presentation that he spends the vast majority of his time on the qualitative aspects of the market. You know, these algorithms and these really smart people on Wall Street can pick up disequalibriums that are very quantitative, you know, multiple high return. on capital or whatnot, if you're just looking at those metrics, just using that as your investment

Starting point is 00:35:38 basis, then oftentimes you're probably missing something in your assessment, if that's your basis for investing. Really, it's the things that can't be picked up by an algorithm or can't be picked up by these types of technologies that offer, I think, individual investors in advantage. Yeah, absolutely. And the other thing also to think about is that a lot of these algorithmic businesses, they have a lot of money behind them and they can pay money. specifically to have these very small advantages, and that's why it makes sense for them, but for the average person, you're going to have a very hard time competing with them. So turning to sociology here, sociology is essentially the study of human and group behavior.

Starting point is 00:36:18 Markets are essentially the result of groups of people and how those people within groups behave, which can make this study useful for investors. Hachstrom opens up this chapter with a quote from Sir Isaac Newton. he said, I can calculate the movement of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of men. So for those not familiar with the story of the South Sea bubble, Sir Isaac Newton, he got in early on the hype, made a ton of money, saw his friends making even more money, and he regretted selling. So he bought back in near the top only to essentially lose so much of his investment in the crash that followed. What I found interesting about this chapter was the discussion around

Starting point is 00:36:57 what makes a market efficient? Because as someone who's an active investor, I talked about how we're looking for those states of disequilibrium in those states where the market is at an inefficiency. So essentially things I think the market is getting wrong. Haxler outlines that there are really two key variables that make the wisdom of the crowd accurate. The first is the diversity of participants, which can be somewhat counterintuitive. And then the second is independence of thought. So he argues that having a wide diversity actually makes the overall market even smarter than the smartest participant. So diversity of investors, you'd say day traders, speculators, smart investors, novice investors, all these different types of people, which, you know, it seems counterintuitive. If you add a bunch of people that really don't know what they're doing, you'd think it would make things more inefficient.

Starting point is 00:37:51 But there's some data and studies done that show that it actually makes the overall market smarter. So the more diversity you have, the more efficient the market tends to be. And independence of thought essentially means that one person's decision on a stock isn't reliant on another person's decision. So this isn't necessarily always true when it comes to the stock market. Oftentimes people will buy a stock because their neighbor bought it as well and got rich off it. A large amount of independence in the markets, for example, was removed during the tech bubble because a lot of money was just, just chasing the same types of companies, which led to this massive disequilibrium because everybody was thinking the same way.

Starting point is 00:38:34 One of the people who's influenced me is Michael J. Mobison, and he's written a ton about diversity breakdown. It's such an interesting concept because it relates so well to what I mentioned about market forecasting. So as Clay pointed out, independence of thinking is a key variable to making the wisdom of the crowd accurate. So Mobison has run some really interesting experiments in his classroom that help illis. just how accurate the crowd can be compared to just one expert. So he ran one test, just a jelly

Starting point is 00:39:03 bean test. Name how many jelly beans there are in a jar. So the answer was 1,116 and the average guess was actually 1,151, so very close. So the collective was very accurate. But the average individual was off by 700 beads. So, you know, they had just wide ranges of answers. So Mobison writes, the diversity prediction theorem tells us that a diverse crowd will always predict more accurate than the average person, not sometimes, always. So Mobeson further goes on to mention that you can improve the collective accuracy in two ways. One, you can increase the ability or two, you can increase a diversity. So as investors, we have no control over the diversity of the market. It's just going to do whatever it's going to do. But we have some control to some extent of our abilities. So this

Starting point is 00:39:52 can be a bit of a slippery slope because, as Mobeson would point out, most people like to overestimate their abilities. But by definition, 50% of people will be above average, and 50% of people will be below average. So the most usable part here, I think, is that if we can observe a breakdown in a diversity, then we can better spot opportunities in the market. So Clay mentioned events like the tech bubble. There's a huge breakdown of independence of thought. And so when everyone is thinking the same thing due to greed or fear or whatever when you witness these types of events, this is where the largest mispricings will happen. But because the market will eventually have more independence of thought,

Starting point is 00:40:28 these mispricings will close very quickly. So if you find the right opportunity, you might not have very much time to act on it. So another interesting point about bubbles and this notion of diversity breakdown is the relationship between what Robert Hanks from calls fundamentalists versus trend followers. Most of the time, there is an equilibrium between fundamental focus investors and trend followers. When they are in equilibrium, prices are, most likely going to be closer to intrinsic value. But as we know from history, bubbles happen pretty regularly. To break down how this happens, we can see that during these events, the equilibrium

Starting point is 00:41:02 between fundamentalists and trend followers changes. So let's say there's a stock that fundamentalists like very much. The stock has been moving up somewhere around the increases in the intrinsic value of that business. But then as that stock price goes up, we get more and more trend followers observing the exact same thing. They're liking the fact that the stock price is going up. So they begin to buy the stock and they drive the price upwards. Now the fundamentalists, they start exiting the stock because they're like, okay, well, this stock is good, but the price is getting to a point now where it doesn't make any sense. So a lot of these fundamentalists are going to start exiting the stock and selling it, but they have willing buyers. These momentum people are just going to keep on buying

Starting point is 00:41:44 the stock. So this basically results in the fact that you have less fundamentalists. mentalists and more momentum traders and the equilibrium goes way out of whack. And this can go on for very long periods of time until the momentum eventually stops. And once the momentum stops and the trend followers decide to all exit, you have these massive levels that pop. And it's not very good to be a holder during that time. So this is just a good example and kind of, you know, Clay is going to go over some stuff happening with GameStop.

Starting point is 00:42:13 That's a lot of really well with us. Yeah. So I absolutely love this framework. of trend followers and fundamentalists. I'm reminded of my recent conversation with Chris Mayer, and he talked about how he really likes to look at each business in his portfolio, and then look at how the stock price moved throughout the year. And oftentimes, you'll find a few names that just presented some great opportunities, even over the span of one year. So in a lot of cases, it's not like you have to wait, you know, five plus years to get into some of these businesses that you

Starting point is 00:42:46 like. For example, let's say a company increases their earnings by 20% over the year. You know, say it's just a gradual step up quarter after quarter. Their earnings are up into the right. But the stock price doesn't directly follow the intrinsic value because of this pendulum between the trend followers and the fundamentalists. And I think, you know, that's really at what's at play. So the sort of mental model you can use is you see this intrinsic value increase. But then the stock price sort of oscillates a lot of times above and below the intranet. value of how the market's sort of viewing the company. And that's how you can see these swings between the trend followers and the fundamentalists and people getting excited about it and not getting

Starting point is 00:43:25 so excited about it. And Haxstrom also equated stock market bubbles as a social phenomenon, similar to something like an avalanche. Kind of reminds me of the market forecasting stuff. One can never predict what's going to spark an avalanche and how big the avalanche is going to be because there's just so much randomness, so many downstream effects that are just unpredictable. And I can't help but think of talking about the GameStop and AMC stuff that went up 10x after COVID. And ironically enough, they're up crazy today here in Ben Bay. The fundamentalists were shorting the stock because they looked at the business and they

Starting point is 00:44:03 just thought this thing's going to become bankrupt essentially. But there's a social phenomena where you had these group of people on Reddit. they all bought into the stock. They all bought into the story. The stock goes way up. And then the fundamentalists that were short, they get these margin calls that pushed up the price even more, which encouraged even more of these trend followers to jump on board. And just this irony to this, where things become mispriced to the upside and short sellers are forced to buy back in and these trend followers pile back on. But eventually, you run out of trend followers and if enough people are up 5x or 10x, then they're going to

Starting point is 00:44:41 start taking profits and the cycle reverses and then the shorts pile back on and it goes back towards its equilibrium. So I guess that's my way of saying buyer beware. I think the major takeaway from this chapter though is that since we have all these different actors, you know, within a system living within their own reality of the right way to invest, then you're going to get these temporary periods of instability in times where things just don't make any sense. And so that's This applies to both bubbles and crashes. So we shouldn't be surprised when these types of things happen again in the future, because they've always happened in the past.

Starting point is 00:45:20 If you look at just the past five years, for example, you have the March 2020 crash in COVID, and then things got pretty bubbly in 2021. And then even today, there's certain pockets of the market that are pretty hot. And I think another takeaway is that some stocks are going to be dominated by people that are just operating within a different reality of what, many other types of investors deemed to not really be rational. So, for example, maybe I'm crazy, but Kyle and I may never buy a company like Nvidia. And if Nvidia is the hottest stock on the market, then that doesn't mean that we have to hop on board or that we have to try and make sense of it.

Starting point is 00:45:59 We may even like the company itself, but if the stock is dominated by trend followers, then it may never get to a price that we can really make sense of. So you want to focus on stocks where hopefully there's less of those trend followers, hopefully less in the headlines and in the news that it's out of the limelight of where these trend followers are looking for companies that might be big movers. Yeah, so those are great case studies there in GameStop and Nvidia and I agree with you. So I think it's fair to say that I like you have no interest in really either of those businesses. So it's interesting when I talk to people about GameStop, which I did actually look at pretty in depth many months before the original run-up. So

Starting point is 00:46:38 So people always assume that I was upset with myself for not taking part. And honestly, I wasn't. So, you know, the business just, it didn't make sense to me. And it was not a high quality business. And I still don't think it's a high quality business today. And, you know, yes, there was this short angle squeeze, but that was a game that I just had zero interest in playing. And therefore I just didn't take part.

Starting point is 00:46:59 So I'm totally fine with that decision. And, you know, even though I could have made many multiples on my initial investment and I missed it, perfectly fine. You don't need to be part of literally everything that goes on in the market. Another point you made there was about the feeling or the need to hop on board of a stock when the price has run up. So I actually prefer taking, and I think Clay would probably agree with me, he prefers taking the opposite stance where maybe we're looking for a business that are currently unloved by the market and everyone's maybe trying to hop off. So this gives me the ability to buy them

Starting point is 00:47:29 at a very good price and de-risks the investment due to the lower purchase price. So this might seem very obvious to many listeners we study billionaires because we have a lot of value investors out there, but trend following is just a dangerous game to play. You have no idea when the trend will end, and when it ends, it usually ends with a bang, not a whimper, meaning you expose yourself to large amounts of downside risk. The power of greed also just pulls us into making investments into something that has been trending up. That's why a lot of people are, end up being trend followers. But I would suggest that you try to be as robotic as possible in your analysis and stay away from investments where the price just doesn't make any sense. If you're patient, long-term investor,

Starting point is 00:48:08 you can wait for trend followers to leave, in which case, buying can often be a really good option because now you're going to have that disequilibrium in the direction that makes sense for people who are buying. So lastly, I just wanted to mention an important point about quality shareholders that Lawrence Cunningham's done a brilliant job writing about. So if you can find a business with a high concentration of quality shareholders, which in Robert Hags from the lingo would just think about fundamentalists who are long-term oriented, you'll probably find that holding the stock is going to be even easier. So if you look at businesses like, let's say, Berkshire Hathaway or Constellation Software,

Starting point is 00:48:42 do they have some volatility? Yeah, they do. But both Warren and Mark Leonard have mentioned that they don't really want the stock to go super high above or super high below the intrinsic value of the business. They've said this publicly. So they feel that if this happens, they know they have a lot of quality shareholders and that it will benefit these shareholders because holding the stock is much easier when the price isn't violently swinging, which can cause over trading. So, you know, if you look at some of these high quality businesses, they're just easier to hold as an owner because, you know,

Starting point is 00:49:10 they don't attract that many trend followers. So just another thing to think about. 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 Vantta is a game changer. Vanta automates your compliance.

Starting point is 00:49:30 process and brings compliance, risk, and customer trust 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 Ryder spend 82% less time on audits with VANTA. 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 the type of platform

Starting point is 00:50:06 I'd want in place. Get started at vanta.com slash billionaires. That's vanta.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 00:50:41 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 plus 500.com to learn more. Trading in futures involves risk of loss and is not suitable for everyone. Not all applicants will qualify.

Starting point is 00:51:23 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 WSB to invest in the Fundrise income fund in just minutes.

Starting point is 00:52:07 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 funds prospectus at Fundrise.com slash income. This is a paid advertisement. All right, back to the show. It's funny, too, when the managers talk down a stock that can also keep some trend followers away too, because people are less likely to get excited about it, especially when the CEO isn't as promotional. And I had

Starting point is 00:52:50 mentioned there to potentially avoid companies that are sort of in the limelight. But I think meta can be a caveat to that where it's in the limelight, but it's not getting the positive press, it's getting the negative press. And it really just sort of feeds on itself on the downside. And so many people obviously cover that stock, watch that stock, but it's still like a lot of people just missed the massive opportunity in hindsight, at least, that was there. Yeah, it's just an interesting case study I continue to visit over and over again. The last section we're going to be covering today is psychology. Psychology is really the study of. of how the human mind works, which in my opinion is one of the most interesting parts about

Starting point is 00:53:30 being a host of this show and studying the game of investing. So Daniel Conneman, he's done a ton of research related to behavioral finance. A lot of the terms we talk about on the show really originated from him. You think about anchoring, framing, overconfidence, loss aversion. The list goes on. We always like to tell ourselves we behave and we think rationally and we always do what's best for rest, but every single one of us is irrational to some degree because of these behavioral biases. So look at loss aversion, for example. Connman was able to prove that individuals are loss-averse. So it's really just hardwired into us again. Mathematically, Connman proved that people regret a loss more than they welcome a gain by up to two and a half times. So in other words, if I were to have a

Starting point is 00:54:19 $5,000 loss, that would hurt twice as much as the pleasure. I would get from a $5,000 gain. So one of the parts I found interesting on this was the discussion around the equity risk premium in particular. This is a topic we hardly ever talk about on the show. So I'll give a brief definition here. The equity risk premium, it's essentially the additional return that investors demand for investing in stocks relative to bonds.

Starting point is 00:54:46 So let's say bonds right now, government bonds, pretty close to risk-free relative to other investment options out in the market. let's say they pay 5%. And that's essentially the risk-free rate. If the stock market is priced at, say, a 10% return, or maybe some of the companies in your portfolio are priced at a 10% expect a return, then your equity risk premium would be the difference between the two. So 10 minus 5 is a 5% equity risk premium. So Conneman was really interested in this because the difference seemed particularly high, given that historically equities have outperformed bonds when you look out over a long enough time horizons. You know, I think a lot of people would think that it would be priced a bit closer.

Starting point is 00:55:29 So it also brings a question like, why would anyone own bonds if, you know, you're going to get a 5% return instead of 10%. So Connman, he reasoned that because investors, they commonly check their portfolios and they know there's a risk that stocks might drop 10, 20, 30, 40% in a year, then they're much more hesitant to invest in stocks because of that potential loss in the short run. And humans also, I talked about certainty and uncertainty earlier, humans value a certain outcome over an uncertain one. And stocks are much more uncertain than bonds over shorter time horizons. That's right. And so there's another concept that Robert Hags from mentions here, which was myopic loss aversion. So Hicks wrote the following. In my 28 years in the investment business,

Starting point is 00:56:15 I have observed firsthand the difficulty of investors, portfolio managers, consultants, and committee members of large institutional funds have with internalizing losses, loss aversion, made all the more painful by tabulating losses on a frequent basis, myopic loss aversion, and overcoming this emotional burden penalizes all but a very few select individuals. So can you guess the one person who has most brilliantly overcome myopic loss aversion? If you guess Warren Buffett, then well done. So Warren has overcome the common psychological tendency from this vast experiences in his understanding in his understanding of thinking of stocks and businesses in the same light. So because Buffett has this vast experience of both fully owning businesses and partially owning

Starting point is 00:57:00 businesses, he thinks that businesses in terms of their operating fundamentals and not in terms of the fluctuations in the stock price. So the other thing he does that most fund managers do is he looks at performance over many years, not over many quarters. So Robert gave a very good example of how Warren has succeeded, even though a lot of the loss aversion would have made the average investor feel nauseous taking the same action. So like Clay just mentioned about how we feel losses worse than we feel gains. So let's just take a look at Berkshire's investment into Coke between 1988 and 1998. So over that time horizon, it worked out great.

Starting point is 00:57:36 Coke was a 10-bagger while the S&P 500 was only a three-bagger. But when we look at this investment through the lens of loss aversion, the investment is just seen in a different light. So during the 10 years that Warren held Coke, Coke actually underperform the market four times and outperform six times. So yeah, that's great. But if we look at it from an emotional unit, we know that outperformance, we give it one unit. So that's six total units. And underperformance is four, but that's doubled, right? So that's eight. So you get a net negative experience from owning Coke or that 10 year period despite it being a 10-begger, which, you know, it's just kind of mind-blowing. But since Warren Buffett doesn't concern himself with a short term, he's able to just withstand

Starting point is 00:58:15 these drops and the share prices because he's just, once again, he's looking at the fundamentals of the business. So if you can clone this decision that Buffett does to try to look long-term, you can see how much upside there is, even though in the short term, there's going to be times where the stock market's just telling you sell, sell, sell, stop the pain. I also wanted to touch on Clay's point here about how the stock market has outperformed bonds. Clay made a great point. you know, the stock market has historically outperformed bonds and all other asset classes. But I just wanted to go on, go and talk about why this is a little bit. So my favorite reasoning from this was from Lee Lu's wonderful article, the prospect of value

Starting point is 00:58:52 investing in China. So in it, he looks at stocks as an asset versus other assets such as bonds and cash and some other things. And his explanation is really simple for why stocks have outperformed. Essentially net profits over the last 200 years have grown at about 6 to 7% per annum. And that tends to be the historical return of the stock market during that time period as well. So the other way he looked at it as well was if you invert the historical price to earnings ratio of the index, which is 15, you get 6.7% earnings yield, which again is pretty similar to the long-term gains of the stock market. Just to compare that, bonds have historically returned just 3.5%.

Starting point is 00:59:31 So just kind of piggyback in on what Clay was saying about bonds is that, you know, obviously you get these coupons that bonds pay. you know, there's a very high certainty that you're going to get it. So people who are more risk-averse are going to like bonds. So, you know, you're basically guaranteed to get these coupons and the chances of you not getting them or the chance of your principal going down are very slim. So my dad actually fits this mold exactly. He absolutely hates seeing when his savings go down. So he's basically just taking the strategy of investing almost all of his savings into bond ETFs. That way he doesn't have to deal with those losses. And I think within the stock market,

Starting point is 01:00:08 even, there's a lot of investors who don't like holding volatile stocks. So that can also present opportunities for investors who seem to find pleasure in volatility. So Charlie Munger, he's well known for highlighting this type of faulty thinking that we can have in his well-known speech on the psychology of human misjudgment. And this is also covered in Peter Bevelin's book titled Seeking Wisdom, which is a wonderful read. And I constantly have to remind myself that we all think that we think rationally, but it's nothing of the sort. We're highly influenced by our emotions and our emotions can blind us to rationality. I really can't help but also highlight the importance of understanding incentives. When you have the right incentive structure in place

Starting point is 01:00:55 and you have incentives that give you the result that you want, then the desired result tends to give you a much greater chance of happening. Whereas when you look at a business where it feels like the company is constantly trying to push a boulder uphill, the entire incentive structure is just totally messed up. And then, you know, Charlie's favorite business outside Berkshire is Costco. You can think about how each party in the Costco business model and, you know, how they sort of interact with each other. So the main parties that come to mind is the shareholders, the managers, the employees, the customers, and the suppliers. So as Costco grows, each party is really better off.

Starting point is 01:01:38 So shareholders get strong returns on capital. Managers get compensated fairly and they're aligned with shareholders. Employees are well compensated and to my knowledge have a fairly good work environment. Customers get a superior value proposition and then the suppliers just get bigger and bigger orders from Costco to stock their stores. And I think of this as almost a business working in harmony. And then you look at other businesses. It just isn't structured the same way.

Starting point is 01:02:05 the businesses dependent on low wage workers, maybe they have poor working conditions, high amount of turnover, or maybe the management team is incentivized based on revenue growth or EBITDA, which isn't optimal for shareholders. So the parties are at odds with each other. And, you know, one party's win is another party's loss. Another lesson from Munger's psychology of human misjudgment is that most of us tend to be overconfident in our abilities. But Mobuson reminded us, by definition, 50% of us are going to be below average. So with this overconfidence, we assume that bad things aren't going to happen to us or happen to companies that we happen to own. And I have to constantly remind myself of my own limits and what I think I know.

Starting point is 01:02:49 So when things are going well, it's easy to be overconfident, think we're smarter than everyone else. And then, you know, it's so easy to lie to ourselves and make ourselves believe we're so smart when things are going well. And then when things aren't going so well, it's easy to tell ourselves that we just didn't get lucky. So whether things are going well, whether they're going poorly, we always need to be open to the possibility of being wrong and open to other people's viewpoints and how they're seeing things. I love how you mentioned incentives are clay. So one of my favorite Charlie Meyer quotes is I think I've been in the top 5% of my age cohort all my life in understanding the power of incentives. And all my life, I've underestimated it. And a year never passes, but I get some surprise that pushes my limit a little bit farther.

Starting point is 01:03:31 So, you know, incentives are so crucial for understanding if you want to invest well and invest in really good companies. We always need to remember that management teams will chase the incentives that the board has designated to them. If they have incentives that punish shareholder value, you should take that as a major red flag and just skip the investment entirely. But Charlie understood this so well, and that's why he paid very close attention to making sure that the incentives of the people he trusted at the company level to manage his businesses

Starting point is 01:03:59 were incentivized to create alignment with shareholders, and more importantly, incentivized to create shareholder value. So one of the evolutions of my investing analysis has also been towards really paying way more attention to incentives. So when I first started investing, I just didn't look too much at the incentive structure for management. And now, as I've learned and as I've studied Charlie Munger and understood how much he, how much importance he puts on incentives, I really spend a lot of time trying to understand it at a pretty deep level. So, you know, I want to know a few things. Does management have skin in the game? What key performance indicators? Are they incentivized to accomplish? Are there key performance indicators aligned with

Starting point is 01:04:41 creating shareholder value? Do managers think long term? The list really just goes on. But you want to make sure that you are in business with people that you are aligned with. And this matters. both for private and public businesses. So I want to end this section just by mentioning how Stig has carefully constructed his incentive structure at TIP in the same light that Warren Buffett and Charlie did with Berkshire. So Stig understood very well that people working in an area of TIP would maybe have very little impact on other divisions of the business. So we are incentivized to create value in the specific segments that we work in.

Starting point is 01:05:14 If one of the segments that we work in provides no value to TIP, then we're not incentivized. And I think it's a very fair way to do it. You had mentioned Constellation Software earlier. The account from Twitter, it's called Seeking Winners. They sent me this great write-up on Lumine, which is a spinoff of Consolation. One of the great points they made on what the Constellation family has sort of figured out is that as headcounts grow within an organization, the complexity within the business just skyrockets.

Starting point is 01:05:45 So many of us know that as businesses grow, bureaucracy starts to creep in, you know, and employees, you know, they start having to operate within these guidelines, within these principles. And this really stifles innovation because now everyone feels like they're just walking on eggshells, trying not to break the rules. So what Lumine did to counter this is they kept individual businesses units small to keep that entrepreneurial spirit intact. And essentially, you have all these small companies within a larger holding company. And all of them are essentially acting as if they were independent. And they may have also adopted this strategy from Illinois Tool Works, which is a company that Mark Leonard studied. And this company under their CEO's

Starting point is 01:06:29 leadership, John Nichols, they grew revenue by acquiring and splitting businesses into these smaller independent units. So I wanted to mention the incentive structure at Lumine that stood out to me and point to some of the items you talked about in that list there, just to use Lumine as an example. And Kyle and I don't own shares in this company. So the board member, to my knowledge, they all own shares, and they either came from the Constellation family or they're intimately familiar with the underlying business units within LUMines, and they are required to invest 50% of their bonus into LUMINE shares. Then second, a significant portion of the managers' bonuses are used to purchase shares of LUMINE

Starting point is 01:07:10 on the open market, so this incentivizes the managers to think like owners. And then there's also a lockup period of three to five years, so they aren't going to be, making these acquisitions to try and boost the stock price over the next year because they know they have to hold it for at least three or five years. And oftentimes I think you see these managers just hang on to their shares for a really long time. And then bonuses for managers are tied directly to the company's performance. So their bonuses are calculated based on some calculation between the difference between return on invested capital and the cost of capital. So to put this in plain English, this means that managers only get a bonus if they're creating shareholder value,

Starting point is 01:07:50 which is wonderful as a shareholder. Then what's oftentimes overlooked is that there's a lot of software companies that dilute shareholders through stock-based compensation. And one of our previous episodes of TIP, I recall the typical company in the S&B 500 does something like 1 to 2% dilution through stock-based compensation. And it's even more prevalent in software. companies. So since Lumine and the other constellation companies won't be doing any of this stock-based comp, that alone adds two to four percent to the returns for investors relative to other software companies. And then all these factors combines, I think, really creates a strong alignment between the managers and shareholders to use this company, Lumine, as an example. And then Joseph Shaposhnik and I,

Starting point is 01:08:39 a couple months back on our episode, also discussed incentives. He's targeting to own business businesses that increase their free cash flow per share at a rate greater than the market. So ideally, he wants some sort of incentive in place that encourages managers to do that. He used an example of Walter's Clure, whose management team is incentivized based on sales growth, free cash flow growth, and return on invested capital. So he explained how they have these guardrails in place where they're incentivized to play offense, but also play defense as well, where they're paid to compound free cash flow per share. and compound revenues as well. But at the same time, they have to do it while getting a good

Starting point is 01:09:21 return on their capital. And they have a really strong history of doing that. The free cash flow per share is up 3x over the past 10 years. And then do you contrast that with the business that incentivizes based on EBITDA or EPS? Then you see managers act on what he calls their animal spirits and go make a bad acquisition, dilates your shareholders as well in the process. when I look at just the Constellation family of businesses, that's part of the reason that I like the businesses so much that I look at a lot of incentive programs now because I find it really interesting. And I still,

Starting point is 01:09:54 I don't think I've found one that's better than Constellation or Topicus or Lumine, which they're all similar. But it's just, it's such a tremendous way to create shareholder value. And through the system, like Clay was saying, a lot of these managers, they just end up holding their stock in the company.

Starting point is 01:10:08 So I know Mark Leonard's made it a goal to just generate a bunch of millionaires who are inside of constellation and inside of its umbrella businesses. So it's just a tremendous way of adding shareholder value while also incentivizing managers and really aligning them together. Yeah, I made a note to Kyle and I are going to be continuing the discussion on this book and the episode that goes out in a few days. But Chris Mayer shared this wonderful chart of what drives shareholder returns. And I'll briefly mention it here.

Starting point is 01:10:39 So in the short run, it's really driven by sentiment, and the change in the multiple, but over the long run, it's driven by people and culture. And to take the incentives one step further, I think Constellation Software with their business model and the way they operate and how they think very long term, you don't go to Constellation to get like a giant pay grade and try and get rich, you know, really quickly, maybe like something like investment banking or something where you just kind of work to death and, you know, make your money and get out. Constellation, they want a culture where people are thinking, long term. And there's this culture that is brought about as a result of that. So the company

Starting point is 01:11:18 tracks the right people and then these people, you know, just grow and get better together. So I think there's something really powerful there within the incentive structure within that culture as well that's really powerful. So that wraps up today's episode. Kyle and I are going to be continuing this chat here in a few days. So be sure to check out that episode as well. Thanks for tuning in and I hope to see you then. Thank you for listening to TIP. Make sure to follow We Study Billionaires on your favorite podcast app and never miss out on episodes.

Starting point is 01:11:50 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 - TIP640: Investing: The Last Liberal Art w/ Clay Finck & Kyle Grieve

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