We Study Billionaires - The Investor’s Podcast Network - TIP649: Owning Stocks for the Long Run w/ Pierre-Olivier Langevin

Starting point is 00:00:00 You're listening to TIP. On today's episode, I'm joined by Pierre Olivier Langman to discuss the investment approach at Medici in several of their portfolio holdings. In the world of investment managers, Medici stands above most other firms with an exceptional investment track record, achieving a 16% annualized return since 2009 compared to just 11.3% for their benchmark. Medici is based in Montreal and the vast majority of their investors speak French, so I was very happy to host the firm's first ever podcast interview in English. During this episode, we cover what led Pierre to joining Medici so early in the firm's

Starting point is 00:00:35 existence, why Medici utilizes an investment committee to select new stocks, an overview of their investment thesis in Dollar Rama, Meta, and O'Reilly Automotive, and much more. With that, I hope you enjoy today's episode with Pierre. Celebrating 10 years and more than 150 million downloads. You are listening to the Investors Podcast Network. 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, Clay Fink. Welcome to the Investors Podcast. I'm your host, Clay Fink. And today, I'm very happy to be joined

Starting point is 00:01:26 by Pierre Olivier Langavan from Medici Private Wealth Management. Pierre, it's so wonderful to have you with us today. Well, thanks for having us and quite a B2B. So Medici has had this phenomenal track record since its founding as you've compounded capital at 16% per year since the start of 2009. And that's versus your benchmark compounding at just 11.3%. And Pierre, you've been a part of a lot of that growth as portfolio manager at Medici. And I wanted to start from the beginning. So after you started your career in industrial design, you then transitioned to the investment industry when you joined Medici in 2011. and that was just two years after the company's founding.

Starting point is 00:02:09 So I'm curious, what did you see in Medici at the time? And how did you know it was a firm for you, given that you were really just getting started in the world of investing professionally? There was nothing much to see. In terms of track record, there was almost none. The firm was starting. And from my point of view,

Starting point is 00:02:27 I wanted eventually to leave industrial design to pursue that investment career. But I saw it as something that would come far away in the future. And so I would do industrial design as my daytime job, and on evenings and nights, I would do investment. And so Cal Simar and Danny Foster, they were attracted to my profile. So they founded Medici two or three years before they met me. And I was writing a financial blog just to have connections and speak with people that know fundamental investing. They were attracted to my profile just as I wrote that blog.

Starting point is 00:03:03 And Cal Simar on his side was writing in the local news, paper in Quebec and Montreal. And he would talk about businesses, good ROE or return-and-asset businesses. I recall that he even wrote a paper about if Warren Buffett invested in Quebec companies, what are the business he would look for? And I recall names like Kankarilichelieu, Alimentation Couchard, a CGI group. And he thought positively about some of the same things as I do. So seeing the markets as a way to buy businesses, not pieces. of paper. But I think what was most unique about Medici and how we started is there was no star investor leading the way. So I think most investment firm today are born from an employee,

Starting point is 00:03:51 from an investment firm that chooses to leave the firm and go on its own. And so he knows the recipe, he knows the processes. And he would find people on back office functions to help him keep looking at stocks during the day and so on. So there was no process like this. Everything had to be done. Even Calcimar, who founded the company, he did not come from another investment firm. He learned actuary because at a young age, what they taught him at school, it was basically that the markets were efficient. And you could not generate any meaningful alpha over the long term. So he was like, okay, so if nothing can be done there, then I won't pursue that career. And so So all the process we had to learn them, Cal and Danny did know they had to have great people,

Starting point is 00:04:40 great processes in terms of investment. We just looked at what the best we're doing. If you want to be good at hockey, you should watch Connor McDavid or Sidney Rodsby videos. That's the same thing for investment. You should watch Warren Buffett. You should watch Phil Fisher. I remember Cal and Danny asked me on my first interview, do you manage your own money?

Starting point is 00:05:01 what is your return so far and how do you calculate your return? And I was like, gosh, I was thinking about hard questions to answer. I was like, oh, that's super simple questions. But what I learned later, maybe a year or two after, is all people that were interviewed, they didn't even invest with their own portfolio. They would buy mutual funds. They would do indexing. And so when you think about investment, probably even more in Canada, in Quebec,

Starting point is 00:05:28 it's fascinating to see how much industry participants. aren't even trying to beat the market. And even the ones that say they do try to big the market, you look at mutual funds. There are 7,500 stocks in that. And so if your best idea is, I don't know, 4% of your portfolio, are you really in the business

Starting point is 00:05:49 of having significant, meaningful returns? So, of course, you'll underperform. If you charge fees and you're closed at indexing, you'll underperform. So I was surprised by that. I said, well, here comes a great business. that's coming at me. We could add value if we do it properly. That's wonderful. And yeah, I think you mentioned sort of the team aspect of not having sort of

Starting point is 00:06:12 one all-star running the show. And I think that's one of the unique things about Medici and how you managed to generate these outsized returns is you use this investment committee to make investment decisions. So I was curious if you could talk about how the committee works, how it's used to generate investment ideas, and then how an idea eventually enters the portfolio. The committee in itself is not doing much research work. The research is done by analysts and amongst the five members of our committee, there's three analysts that are mainly working full-time, looking at stocks and stuff. And so the reviewing is done by the committee and all the buy and sales decisions are done by the committee. By the way, having five members, we feel like it's

Starting point is 00:06:58 the good amount of people. Too much people. It's mostly like a survey of public opinion. You don't want that, okay? You want a team that's nimble enough to be able to take bold decisions. And if you've got 10 person around the table and you want to put 10% of your money in a stock, it's going to be a quite hard task. And having only one people on the flip side, the problem is we want to avoid failure. And if you end up putting 25% in a single stock because you're super confidence in a given investment and you don't have anyone to challenge you. If you fail on that idea, then you could lose a bunch of money. And so being able to put 10% in a stock is significant enough, but having a too small committee would put us at risk, we think.

Starting point is 00:07:50 And going into our strategy because the strategy is being applied by analysts but also by the committee. We're fundamental investors and all the members of the committee are really investors on themselves. They have their own portfolio. They make their own decisions for their own money. And when we find something attractive, we want it to be significant. So we own maybe 15, 20 stocks, more or less. We've got only one strategy. Okay. And we're bottom-up generalists. So tech, pharma, financial, industrial, we would look at all those kinds of companies. Although we tend to shy away from biotex, resources, highly cyclical with fixed cost, or highly speculative, not revenue generating, we would shy away from it. Or the latest fashions, you think about Beyond Me, cannabis industry,

Starting point is 00:08:38 cryptocurrencies, valiant pharma, so we didn't invest in any of those things. And there's basically four criteria that we would look at. Good and sustained return on capital. Ideally, even during recessions, meaningful and durable and durable as an expanding competitive advantage. The third one is having good managers that are able to reinvest for the long term and attractive rate of return. And if you've got all those three, it's great. You got a great business. But we're investors and we're there to make a return and a return that's better than the

Starting point is 00:09:16 benchmark. So we need to buy at a reasonable valuation. that's key. The key learnings that we made inside the investment comedy over time, and that circles back to your initial question. Having the discipline to hold your winners. And winners, it's not necessarily stocks that went up. Eventually that converge, but winners for us is business that can compound because they know how to reinvest and as they reinvest their earned capital, the moat is increasing. And so I wish I had been able to understand the importance of reinvesting earlier in my career. I was all about trying to find the best moats, but sometimes you can have modes that

Starting point is 00:10:00 doesn't allow you to reinvest enough. And so your return, although it's a great business that you own, your return are not necessarily as good as I'm out of wish at that time. And so the committee being a group and being focused on compounding always gets you back to that idea. Can that business compound? We sold Apple, we sold Costco, and there's a bunch of business we sold, and we were like, gosh, we left so much money on the table.

Starting point is 00:10:28 So I guess we've learned the hard way, but we haven't sold one company, probably your audience, as well aware of Constellation Software. We've held it since 2012, so it's been 12 years, and it has been expensive much of the time. And being able to see the quality of the business and having that criteria of reasonable valuation, a stock could be expensive, the business could be good, and you could keep it, as long as it's reasonable. And so the committee really helped us learning what stocks should be kept and which one should be sold depending on the valuation.

Starting point is 00:11:05 It's really hard to find true compounders. So when that happens, they won't stay cheap much of the time. So you have to accept to own them at more expensive valuations. And maybe the second key learning would be you research first. And then you try to buy at a reasonable valuation, not the opposite way. Sometimes as investors, we try to seek to things that have gone down. But if you don't know the business and things I've got down, you've got two things to figure out. You got to figure out the business, how it works, what's the management, what's the perspective,

Starting point is 00:11:39 the long-term perspective. But the other thing you need to figure out is what's the problem? Is it temporary or permanent? So you've got two problems to figure out. And what we've learned over time is when you do that process the opposite way. So trying to find things that have gone down. You're rushing on research. You're going quick because your thinking is, oh, well, the stock might go up and I could

Starting point is 00:12:02 lose the opportunity. So we add our best investments looking at companies for years and banging our head on the table and say, gosh, when am I going to buy that thing? It's super expensive and it always been that way. But things happen. Problem happens in life and maybe five years later down the road, you have your opportunity. There's a problem, but you can focus on the problem and figure out if you want to buy or not. Yeah, so many great points there. I liked the point you made on just these truly exceptional businesses can be very rare and we should be very reluctant to sell them. And one of the ideas I've sort of thought about recently is people can look at a company's multiple

Starting point is 00:12:43 today and it might be higher than what it's been in the past. And when you compare today to the past, it'll say, oh, like the company's more expensive. But if the company's done very well and the stock has performed is up three, four X over the past number of years, then that would tell you that the previous multiple you're looking at was a mispricing because something was being underestimated with that company's future growth. So looking at multiples can be a tricky game sometimes with these exceptional companies. It's like a muscle that you need to flex. The more you know about the business and the more if the business is great quality, the more you come up to the idea that multiple isn't that important. It might look expensive. But if you know, hey, that company is able to

Starting point is 00:13:28 reinvest at 20% rate of return, they're generating a lot of cash flow. They're reinvesting most of the cash flow. Generally, even a 30 times P, if you have such a business, it could prove to be cheap. So reasonable is like, it's not black and white. So it's a judgment call, right? You talked a bit about moats there. And with investing, one of the tricky things is we can find ourselves in these eco chambers where you're talking to the same people and you're all spouting many of the same talking points. How about you talk about how the committee has helped you find these exceptional businesses with truly sustainable, truly durable moats and competitive advantages. I'd love to learn more about this.

Starting point is 00:14:11 Although no research is done directly at the comedy level, we assess the research and we ask a lot of questions. And figuring out a moat is, it's not always clear inside of your head when you get information. You know, oh, that's interesting. But having to put it on the paper, having to write it. Because if you're going to present at a committee, you've got to write something. And as you write it, you lay it down on the paper. You see if it doesn't fit. You're like, hey, there's that aspect that I forgot or this or that. Your first committee is your own committee because you write it on a piece of paper.

Starting point is 00:14:45 And there's four other person waiting for you that are going to grill you, questioning you on what you laid out on the paper. So it's really a game changer. I don't know how many individual investors listened at that show. But having other people questioning you, there's always aspect that you will forget when investing. And I have the chance personally to have those four people that are rushing me on question when I lay out a new idea. It's a game changer, really. And as a committee, what do you want, even as an investor? Do you want to form your opinion on a single judgment or do you want to counsel other opinions?

Starting point is 00:15:25 And whether a moat or not can be easily disrupted, you can figure it out many different ways. Life experience can bring you stuff. Knowledge of an industry comparison with other industries. You might relate to some things that might be comparable. Past history, things have been in a given business and you could learn from that. And one of the things that the committee could be useful to is saying too hard. Sometimes you're passionate about what you do. And you're not sure that you can understand a company, but you're willing to work on it.

Starting point is 00:15:59 But you got four other person looking at you, and they're not able to give you any good questions because they don't know what's happening. So sometimes it could be an indicator that you should maybe not pursue your investment idea because nobody's going to be able to challenge you. And we might do a mistake. I think, Clay, you like Charlie Munger. He said, I don't believe in just sitting down and trying to dream it all up yourself. Nobody's that smart. So what do you want? Having five pair of eyes looking at a mode

Starting point is 00:16:30 and figuring whether it's going to change fast or slow, it could be disrupted or not. Do you want to do that stuff alone or you want to do it as a team? You've got to be open-minded if you do it as a team. If you're young investors in the year 2000 and you were using web crawler, Altavista, Google, and all that stuff,

Starting point is 00:16:50 you would probably see how the phone book in the business, would be challenged. Whereas an older investor that wouldn't use those technologies at that time, the search queries, probably would think, yeah, the phone book business is the best business that ever existed. You don't want to be that person. At Medici, when AI came down, we had an AI expert coming and presenting to the committee and even the rest of the team because we use now AI to upgrade our own internal process. But having the expert, we went from Oh, Google is going to participate in the AI industry and it's going to be a force for them because they've done it. They've done it already.

Starting point is 00:17:32 And we were like, oh gosh, having that presentation, we were like, okay, they will participate, but they will be one participant amongst other. They will not be the only game in town. And so having outside expertise and having people being able to bring in outside expertise is key. An investment committee could do that. And if I could add a little more, not all modes are equal. And when the committee figures out modes, as we've learned to work with each other, we figured that some modes are expanding and some modes aren't or even shrinking. One example is O'Reilly Automotive, which is probably a business that you know well in the US.

Starting point is 00:18:14 We looked at it many years before we bought it. It was, I think, in 2018, Amazon laid out the news or officially or not. I don't remember that they would get into the aftermarkets auto parts industry. And so already went down and then we bought it. But some of the members of the committee were like, okay, that's a fair price. That's fine. But as the stock recovered over the next two or three years, we're like, okay, we should sell it because there's not much growth coming.

Starting point is 00:18:46 and they won't be able to grow and we should sell it as it's well-valued. But there was another side of the thesis that was, we really learned from it looking at the numbers, questioning the management, but also circling back with the members of the committee. It's that, yes, the market seems mature, but there's many players that haven't done the investment, doesn't have the distribution infrastructure to give out parts quickly. and every time O'Reilly opens a new store, they're displacing a legacy store, a mom-and-pop shop store. So even though it didn't look like they had the capacity to open store many years in front of them, they did have that.

Starting point is 00:19:29 And so we had some people from the committee that said, no, there's more growth upcoming that we think. And having that debate inside and having the patience to keep it, Although the valuation might look like it's not reasonable, we made great return and we still own O'Reilly today. 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.

Starting point is 00:20:07 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 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.

Starting point is 00:20:50 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 future is being built by people living it. If you run a business, you've probably had the same thought lately.

Starting point is 00:21:32 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 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

Starting point is 00:22:10 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 netsuite.com slash study. The guide is free to you at netseweet.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 overwhelming and lonely. That's why having the right tools matters. For millions of businesses, that tool is Shopify.

Starting point is 00:22:59 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

Starting point is 00:23:25 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 WSB. Go to Shopify.com slash WSB. That's Shopify.com slash WSB. All right. Back to the show.

Starting point is 00:23:58 Man, you really struck a chord with me there. just having other people to talk about investing with and talk about these very complex subjects like moats. I had realized upon joining TIP that investing is just can be a very lonely endeavor. And it reminds me of the community we launched recently, which is called our TIP Mastermind Community. It's been such a valuable resource to me, just to sort of have people to surround myself with to talk about these complex subjects, talk about companies, talk about moats or investment strategies. And I think it also ties in well to my next question because one of the other aspects of your firm that I found particularly interesting is that your firm proudly states that many of your

Starting point is 00:24:41 analysts, many of your portfolio managers actually didn't come from the investment industry. I'm curious to get your take on if you think this can offer some sort of advantage for your firm, whether it be the ability to think more independently or knock down some of the conventional thinking that academia can teach us, sir. What are your thoughts on that? Yeah, I think with labor shortage, let's say first and foremost, that if you find someone good coming from inside the industry, you don't really have the luxury of not taking him or earth.

Starting point is 00:25:11 There's good people coming from inside the industry. So my point is not to trash against it. But our industry, at least in Canada, I don't know if it works the same way in the US, but it's much more about selling than investing. So if you get people, from inside the industry experience people they're probably well aware of how to sell a fund to a client investing maybe not as well at school they

Starting point is 00:25:38 learn us the efficient market hypothesis so circling back to the first question at the beginning you learn that you cannot beat the market or you shouldn't try to beat the market and so the people that end up learning the fundamental investing the concept of intrinsic value and having a margin of safety when buying assets. It's the one that I figured it out by themselves. They come from outside the industry generally. It doesn't mean someone at school wouldn't have the curiosity to pursue fundamental investing.

Starting point is 00:26:14 But yeah. I think another good point there is tying back to that interview question is like, show me your portfolio. What have you bought? Why'd you buy it? How is it done? It's essentially asking like, it's getting to the point of,

Starting point is 00:26:25 is this person truly passionate about investing? If they're buying a mutual fund with 5,000 companies in it that has all these fees, maybe they aren't as passionate about investing as they might say they are. You might be passionate about financial planning, for example, but investing, I'm not sure, not sure. And so one of my colleague, Eddie, he's my partner. He was so happy to get that portfolio management course at university. He was like, oh, wow, I'll learn investing. And he already invested by himself, by the way.

Starting point is 00:26:55 So, yeah, I'd seen it like as a way to enhance learning. And he just figured out that, wow, it's all about standard deviation and beta and Greek letters thing. You know, he was like, I'm not investing in Greek letters. I'm investing in daughter sign. It's not Greek. It's American. So we're joking about it. And by the way, maybe one idea that is worth saying about the investment committee is it's not going to be a good comedy if it's run by a dictator.

Starting point is 00:27:24 If it's one person taking the decisions and the other person are just there to give out opinions, but there's only one person who decides, what it'll do to the long term is those people that are just giving out opinions, they won't trust the process and they won't speak out their minds because anyway, it doesn't have any effect on the end decisions. The person will end up deciding what he or she wants. And it might sound cliche, but the diversity of opinion has to be incorrect. We have a culture of actively looking for disconforming evidence. So there needs to be people seeking, even though the person presenting has to be seeking for

Starting point is 00:28:06 contrarian feedback. He has to expect it. And that can lead to every debate. And so you need to have a group of mature people that can get along, even though we have a heavy debate. When the committee is over, everyone can get along. Not every people are able to do that. And one funny thing is we have the devil's advocate practice. When there's a new investing idea that is expected to be shown at the committee,

Starting point is 00:28:33 we would pick a name in a bucket and that person would be the devil's advocate. So its only mandate is to be short on the stock and figure out all the bad things he could say about the thesis. And what we've noticed is that over time we don't really need to pick a name because the four other ones are actually devil's advocate. And even the person presenting the idea is the devil's advocate in itself because he would lay out the positive and he would talk about the risk because what better ways to lower the level of debate than by yourself as a presenter saying what doesn't work in my own thesis. So I wanted to take the opportunity in this interview to discuss a couple of Medici's holdings. Being based in Montreal, you inevitably discover some of the companies north of the U.S. border, one of which is dollarrama. And Dollar General has been talked about quite a bit over the past year or so in the U.S.

Starting point is 00:29:30 given how the share price has performed. So when I looked at the returns for Dollar Rama and Dollar General, it's like a night and day difference over the past 18 months, which was honestly quite a surprise for me. Generally, you'd think if there's a slowdown in retail more broadly or some pockets of tail would be affecting many of the players. So when you look from the start of 2023, shares of dollarrama are up over 60% while shares of Dollar General are down around the 50% range. What is Dollar Rama doing that's different than Dollar General? I certainly know Dollar Roma a little more than Dollar General, but we have visited Dollar General quite a few times when we come in the United States,

Starting point is 00:30:11 so I could definitely comment. Dollar General, they have a wider selection of consumables. Whereas when you look at Dolarama, within the consumables category, they will only have the low price, best deals, items that they can find out. Dollar General, they will bundle offers and do promotions. Dalarama, you don't see any promotions. You see everyday low price. No advertising. There's absolutely no advertising. Dollar General's, there's many formats for a single items.

Starting point is 00:30:43 Dollar Rama, almost no big size, especially in the grocery kit. category. You will find a small size. If you want more, you buy two, you buy three. Dollar General, their core audience, from what we understand, maybe we're not totally right about this. These are people buying their grocery, shopping, grocery, where there are sometimes not any other options, small villages. Dalarma, the core audience is people that need everyday stuff. Housewares, cookwares, staples, electronics, arts and craft, toys, tools, tools, tools, and so on. So it's really a general merchandise store. The people that are economically constrained, they might want to shop grocery, but they're not the core audience. They're the

Starting point is 00:31:30 minority. There's many, many difference that I see, but I could lay out the difference with the result in the margin, if you wish so. So I have here that Dollarama's net margins are around 17%. And then contrast this with dollar general, their net margins are down to 4%. They were ranging around 6 or 7, so they've come down with some of the slowdown they've been experiencing.

Starting point is 00:31:58 Why is dollarrama's margin? Why are they able to command such high margins? Again, dollar general, 81% of their revenue comes from consumables. And we know consumables are lower margin product. At dollarrama, it's 46%. So base rates, You know, Daraama, if they add just that difference, there would be a better margin for Dalarama.

Starting point is 00:32:20 Dollar General, they have grocery stores like margin. Daraara is not a grocery stores. Dollar General, 4% of their revenue comes from direct imports. So most of the stuff, the inventory that's coming in, a dollar general, is coming through a distributor. And you have to pay the distributor is cut of the profits. Dalarama, 50% of the products comes from direct imports. So that's a huge difference. Dollar General, you will see a heavier mix of national brands.

Starting point is 00:32:54 And so if you buy national brands, there's maybe less bargaining power that you can flex with those big players. If you visit a dollarama store, you'll see that there's a much higher private-label mix. Dalarama is known for their knockoffs. You look at the chocolate bar stand, you won't see any Mars chocolate bar. You'll see Meteor, which is absolutely the same thing, but it's not made by the company that does Mars. And they like to keep it simple at the Laramma. There's no frozen food. There's no fresh food.

Starting point is 00:33:28 So the energy bill inside the store, inside the distribution infrastructure is much lower because of that. The logistic, think about it, you have no fresh product. You have no refrigerated product or frozen. So the freight, the transportation, you transport by train, it's cheaper. You don't need to transport every one or two days because you have no fresh food. So it's less freight intensive, so it's less expensive to move stuff. The beverage inside the stores, they are almost all on the shelves. They're not refrigerated.

Starting point is 00:34:05 And they're the perfect concept for self-service cashier because there's no age-restricted products. There's nothing being sold by the pound. So you don't need to have a balance and with a code that you input on your checkout. Everything has a barcode. So the throughput can be really fast on self-checkout and you can get labor efficiency because of that. Keep it simple style. And even when setting price, many of the items that they will sell, they have their own price tag. printed on the packaging. That means the product would sell at the same price in every

Starting point is 00:34:41 stores, whether or not the store is in Toronto or I don't know in Soutbury. In Canada, there's not much room for a new entry. They already densified their footprint inside the major cities. The competitive landscape is much easier also. You know, the dollar stores industry is 50% less penetrated in Canada than in the US. So there's still room to grow, but But they have scaled up. I mean, Dollar Tree is the biggest competitor with 250 stores in Canada and they're not growing. And Daraama is more than six times that amount. So the moat is just too big.

Starting point is 00:35:18 If you want to compete D'Arauma in Canada, the best way is you would have to buy Dolarama. And since they're publicly traded and they have quite a nice multiple, I guess there's no one willing to do that. So we talked earlier about the power of high reinvestment rates at high returns. on capital. I see returns on capital for Dollar Rama are in the 20% range. And it's been quite a strong performer over the years. I look at their financials as of late. And I see that a lot of their operating cash flow is being deployed to either paying down debt or share repurchases. And then they do have a bit of growth cap-ex. So I'm also interested in hearing your take on

Starting point is 00:35:57 your outlook for the company from here and what you see in terms of store growth and what keeps you holding on to the stock. The stores are leased, and so they don't spend on real estate that much, which can be quite expensive in terms of CAPEX when this is the case. And so the CAPEX are minimal. It's lease improvements, its equipment, systems. So it costs less than a million dollars to open a store, at least in Canada. So I guess the reason it looks like they reinvest not quite much of their money in opening

Starting point is 00:36:32 store is solely because it doesn't cost a lot. you enter a store and you look at it, there's nothing fancy about it. It really doesn't cost a lot. And the other thing is maybe an accounting issue. It's not an issue. It's just the way the accounting works. They own 50% of a business in Latin America called Dollar City. But it's reporting at the equity method. So if you look at the Cappex, the Cappex bill, it will only be the CEPX for opening new stores in Canada. But they're opening quite a good amount of new stores inside Dollar City. But since it's at the equity method, it will only be reported on the cash rule statement when the Laramah Canada will put in new money inside Dollar City. It happened maybe once or

Starting point is 00:37:19 twice over the last five years. So you won't see it. So there's probably more capex, adjusted capex that you would see. And just to give you a good idea, Clay, the store count in Canada is growing 4 to 5% every year. But if you bake in the pro rata shares of Dauter City, it's more like 7 or 8% a year. That's quite a good clip, a good growth pace for a business, 7, 8%. So we feel like they're running as fast as they can, but they still have the luxury of having excess free cash flows. So it's reasonable to think that they'll continue to do buybacks, although they'll probably try to keep the leverage stable or maybe a little lower. And from an historical perspective, it's hard to blame them for repurchasing shares because the stock went up 30% CAGR since their IPO,

Starting point is 00:38:12 I think 14 or 15 years ago. So we can blame them for that. From our opinion at Medici, we would tend to think that we would prefer to see them buying back opportunistically, although there are not much opportunities, and keep maybe a little more cash for eventual and adding new countries' international expansion. But again, I think it's pretty fair what they do with the capital. Yeah, thank you for expanding on that. That makes sense. They're able to grow without a lot of potential reinvestment,

Starting point is 00:38:46 which is also a very great position to be. in when looking at a company. One of the other big winners in your fund has been meta, which, in my opinion, is one of the most interesting case studies of investor sentiment over the past few years. So today, meta shares are just under $500 a share. And in November 2020, it was under $100. So we're up over 5X in just under two years. But this was not an easy stock to just hang on to. When I look back at 2022, revenues declined in 30. three straight quarters, which is just a gut-wrenching period for investors that are used to a company that was growing at 30% plus for many years. And today, you still have a large stake in

Starting point is 00:39:30 meta to the best of my knowledge, which I think is a company you added to in 2018 during the Cambridge Analytica scandal. And then in 2023 alone, you had outlined in one of your investor letters that meta contributed six percentage points to your returns in 2023. So obviously, it's been a key contributor during the year alongside companies like Constellation Software, Lumein, Amazon, and Alphabet. So given that meta is still a sizable position today, talk to us about what you're seeing in the company and what keeps you in it. I think it's maybe fair to start with a little bit of context on what happened in 2022. So yeah, revenue did decline if you look at the numbers. If you exclude the FX impact, it was growing slightly, although not up to the amount that you've alluded in your question.

Starting point is 00:40:23 And still growing despite the COVID overhang, the mean reversion of digital advertising, the TikTok emergence, Apple's privacy change. So that was a lot of face win. And yet, meta was still able to grow XFX top line. I think that speaks volume about the quality of the business in terms of numbers. And the other issue was the major the leverage, by the way, where they were doing, pursuing a lot of eye rings and the metaverse expense that were getting a little bit out of control at that time. And maybe Zuckerberg was caught into the fear of missing out as the digital economy improved with the COVID. He says, well, maybe we need more staff down the road. and my competitors are doing the same thing, so let's do it.

Starting point is 00:41:12 But he self-corrected pretty quickly in recognizing that he went too much with hirings. And it became clear, by the way, when the layoffs happened in December 22, that the stock was still super cheap, but we would see leverage coming back over the next few quarters. Because laying off 20% of your employees in a business like this one with leverage,

Starting point is 00:41:36 that's magic to the numbers. Yes, the stock went up with the announcement, but we were like scratching our head and like, why is it not going up more? And so we were really bullish at that time. And it had less than 10 times earnings multiple. So it was really a great investment. But you had to figure out that those things were mostly temporary, which was not that easy to do. So circling back to competitive advantage, if we exclude WeChat, which is a network where the vast majority of users, are China-based, which is not an addressable market for Meta. Meta owns four of the six most popular social media website by monthly average users. Facebook is number one, WhatsApp number three,

Starting point is 00:42:21 Instagram 4, Messenger 6. So there's YouTube and TikTok, which they don't own amongst those six. So every new initiative can be leveraged into these four platforms that no one else has. It can even, if you think about threads, the network they've launched, which is quite similar with X Twitter. It can even increase their odds of winning on that network because they're intertwining it with all the other platforms. And so they are built to win in that regard because of their outrageous dominance of the social media environment.

Starting point is 00:42:57 If you think about competition, you might have a chance of building the next TikTok, but how about building two or three platforms like these? What are your odds of success? We think it's likely zero for the short, mid, and even the longer term. Again, think about it. The high cost burden. There's the algorithmic feed.

Starting point is 00:43:18 Today, it's not based on social graph. If you want to create a good feed, it's going to be based on computing power and generating and figuring out what is your interest with the information you get from the app. So it takes at least two or three years to figure this out and many billion dollars worth of CAPEX. You need to build a user network. So you need to have good content. If you want to have good content, well, you better be lucky or you better maybe have some form of content subsidization. And that costs money again, probably a couple billion dollars again. Safety and security. META has invested $20 billion since 2016. $5 billion alone in 2023. Okay, it's not like 10 years ago. You need to have safety and security. There's election integrity. There's undesirable. stuff happening on the platform. If you don't do the investment, you could have hefty fines from the European Commission

Starting point is 00:44:15 and those fines are based on your international revenue, not your profit, not your local profit. So really the revenue. So it could be quite risky for a new platform not to do those investments. So again, it costs many billion dollars. I think it's just hard to scale quickly. The monetization, it's hard to figure it out when you don't have the advertiser base. Zuckerberg has mastered the art of monetizing, but you know that you will have Zuckerbergs against you trying to monetize faster than you. So good luck. And then maybe the last one, the safety and security is going to slow you down. Much, much more than it used to be the case five and ten years earlier in the past. And so without that, it's hard to figure out how meta smoke could be greatly challenged. Google Plus tried and they add the financial capacity. They

Starting point is 00:45:07 They had many other tools that they could intertwine it with, the Google account, the Gmail, the maps, and so on. And yet, they failed. TikTok had its chance, Snapchat also, TikTok risk being banned in the US. And what have they done in security? I'm not sure they have done enough. It's probably easy for me to say that today, but Meta pretty much close a gap on the reels.

Starting point is 00:45:30 So I'd say good luck for the next one who would want to challenge Meta on that. I think we're probably close to a golden A. of social media. 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 together on one AI-powered platform. So whether you're prepping for a SOC to, 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

Starting point is 00:46:14 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 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, Forex, crypto, and beyond. With a simple and

Starting point is 00:47:07 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. 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

Starting point is 00:47:56 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. it fundrise.com slash 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

Starting point is 00:48:47 the investment material before investing, including objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. This and other information can be found in the income fund's prospectus at fundrise.com slash income. This is a paid advertisement. All right, back to the show. I think part of the meta story and the shift in narratives is almost like a shift in capital allocation and where they're focusing their attention. So throughout the 2010s, you could say pretty good capital allocation. They focused on kind of what they were really good at. And then Zuckerberg had this big shift in his focus to the Metaverse where he spent $40 billion and a lot of shareholders or I guess the narrative was that he's just throwing money down the drain and what's the use of all

Starting point is 00:49:32 these cash flows if he's just going to throw them towards something that potentially shows no promise of any payoff at all. We'll see. But maybe you could talk about, yeah, the growth opportunities and then how meta approaches capital allocation in 2024, given these lessons they've learned over the past couple of years with regards to the Metaverse. So the growth opportunities, there's the use of AI. It's just too big not to talk about it. There's probably five elements within the use of AI. The first one is they will increase internal efficiency.

Starting point is 00:50:03 So security, programming, less labor intensity. Second one, they'll increase the ROI on advertising. So we see it with Advantage Plus, the quick audience testing, finding the best visuals, the best text as the AI learn about how you publish stuff. It's going to be meaningful. Third one, increasing the recommended content. So we already have proofs that the recommended content increases time spent and then the ad load, if we can say it that way, versus the social graph. And they already made the CAPEX to have more recommended content. So it would likely help them grow further. Four is the offering of

Starting point is 00:50:46 free AI tools to users. And it's unmonetized for now, the AI tools, but we'll see later down the road. And five is really selling a virtual customer service agent to businesses. So it's a whole new addressable market, if you think about it. You would be replacing human labor or some of your human labor to do customer service. And you would replace it for probably a fixed cost or a monthly cost and it will probably be a fraction of the salary of a human. So that's major if you think about it. And that's a key for even meta if they wish so to get out of not get out but diversify from advertising, selling another kind of services to businesses. And outside of AI, there's click to message advertisement that is going well. There's business messaging on WhatsApp. Instagram is still growing.

Starting point is 00:51:42 You see it in court filings. We have had the numbers from Instagram. It's 30% of their revenue base and it's growing mid-teens even in the 20s. There's $46 billion in cash despite $37 billion in our annual R&D. $16 billion of Metaverse losses, $27 billion of CAPEX. And yet they still have amazing margins. Pre-R&D and pre-Metaverse loss on the income statement. they have an 80% ebit margin business.

Starting point is 00:52:16 And so most of it is discretionary in terms of R&D and Metaverse. And the business still returns 15 to 20% return on capital despite all that. So yeah, Clay, I agree with you. There's a bunch of capex that are being done. And we're not too sure about the outcome. But yet still, it's a really nice business. Even with all those spendings, I think I'll have to quote Zuckerberg on the Q4, 2023, he said,

Starting point is 00:52:44 we're still well positioned now because of the lessons that we've learned from reels. And I decided that we should build enough capacity to support both reels and another real-sized AI service that we expected to emerge. So we wouldn't be in that situation again. And at the time, the decision was somewhat controversial, and we faced a lot of questions on CAPEX spending. So those elevated CAPEX that we should have been in the same, seen over the last two or three years, Medov went from playing defense to playing offense

Starting point is 00:53:15 in two short years. That's amazing and it wouldn't have been possible without all those capics. And Zuckerberg, he works both on the long and the short term. He's been buying back $63 billion worth of stocks within that period. Maybe his timing wasn't perfect. The average price he paid for those buybacks were probably quite interesting. And so those elevated capex, they are totally fungible. Most of that is servers and computing power. They'll be able to train much bigger AI models, recommendation systems, upcoming AI tools that they would want to create. They'll have the capacity to do that. If it doesn't pan out, they could improve safety, they could monetize threads faster, they could create new tools for advertisers.

Starting point is 00:54:03 So I don't think in our era, it's a sin to have more computing capacity than required. It's probably a great asset to have today in our technological era. And maybe the last point I want to touch on for that question is the Metaverse. So many people see the Metaverse or Facebook Reality Labs as it will work or it won't. But it's not a single project. There's the Aptych or Neural Common Systems. So how do you communicate with your device using not your voice, no keyboard, and maybe a wristband? Okay, that's what they are likely going to do.

Starting point is 00:54:42 There's the AI investments, and it's already contributing to the core business. And AI investments was originally from Facebook Reality Labs. There's Horizon, the social media, you know, immersive social media. The augmented reality device, such as the Rayban glasses, they're selling it out. I mean, they're quite popular. and the immersive experience inside of businesses. If you want to meet people, you're a multinational, you want to meet with your partners,

Starting point is 00:55:11 but they're at the other end of the world and you don't want to travel by plane. Well, they have a partnership with Microsoft for that. So there's some stuff within Facebook Reality Labs that are going to be useful, and some other stuff, probably it will be a write-off. We'll see. But it's not all black and white.

Starting point is 00:55:30 I think this transitions well. to my next question on one of my favorite mental models from Warren Buffett. He says, if you don't plan to own a stock for 10 years, don't even think about owning it for 10 minutes. I'm also reminded of Jeff Bezos talking about focusing and betting on things that aren't going to change. Instead of asking what a lot of people are going to ask is like, what's the next big thing, what is going to change in the future. So maybe you could talk a little bit about how your team gets comfortable with how much change a business like meta could be seeing over the next 10 years? It's not an easy question.

Starting point is 00:56:04 There's two major forms of change that we have to contemplate. The first one is new forms of content. And we've seen it historically, switching from text-based status to stories, stories to short-form videos. So I think we've got a great track record from Mark Zuckerberg and his team that they have the assets and the capabilities to ride on those change. And especially with those CAPEX that we've talked about, they have many computing power that allows them to be able to be in front of the next change that will happen. And those change might happen two or three times over the next decade. and we're pretty confident on how Meadows will adapt to it.

Starting point is 00:56:54 The other form is really the form factor. So, for example, switching from desktop to mobile, that was a form factor. It doesn't happen every time. It might not even happen within the next 10 years. So riskier, lower occurrence. And for us, it's still unclear what's going to disrupt the mobile phone. The glasses, the mixed reality headset, they're still. engineering issues, the expert that we've consulted on that is the battery packs, the size,

Starting point is 00:57:25 the heat that's on your face, the weight on your head, the fact that it's ID immersive and it's big, they'll probably figure it out someday, but they don't have the solutions right now for all those challenges. So the change in the form factor might not be coming over the next three, four, five years. It might take a little longer. And apart from gamers, it's still unclear what are the great use case of having this immersive experience with Quest or the Vision Pro. Maybe some people thought that the watch could eventually disrupt the phone, but clearly Apple has taken on that market, and Apple is wise enough to not cannibalize its own phone,

Starting point is 00:58:08 and they made it an additional tool that you might want to use, but concurrently with the iPhone, or jointly with the iPhone, I should say. If you think about Mark Zuckerberg, he's 40 years old. He should already get an award for its proven capacity to react to change. All the shifts that we talked about, desktop to mobile, text to pictures, to stories, to short form video, the political turmoil, the election integrity, those were massive crisis and they had to invest in security in a major way. The fight with Apple's privacy change, and today with recommended content, he's even stronger than before with the cookies and the tracking technologies. He already gets a huge award for its capacity to react, and he's probably not even at its prime. He's proven also that he's trying to make profits.

Starting point is 00:59:04 You could be a good visionary and adapt to change, but not make a profit, and you have to adjust all this and that on the end. income statement, he's not in that business. If he hired too much, he would lay off people. And the main reason that was cited is for nimbleness. Again, that capacity to react to change, having less staff on board. And the capacity to buy back shares, not everyone is able to seize that opportunity when the stock is going down. And he reacted quickly. So I guess as long as Zuckerberg is in control, we'll be fine. Yes, love him or hate him, what he's done. and to be able to start such a incredible company that such a young age is just quite remarkable. And still being at the helm, by the way, because the skills you need at 20 years old to build from scratch a company

Starting point is 00:59:55 and the skills to operate a company with many 10,000 employees, wow, that's not the same thing. It's quite different. Yeah. Each stage of their growth requires very, very different skill sets. So you own three of the U.S. big tech companies. You have meta, alphabet, and Amazon. Which of the three do you foresee to have the strongest growth prospects in the underlying business over, say, the next five, ten years?

Starting point is 01:00:24 That's probably the artist question that you're going to ask me today. Super hard to figure out. They're all highly powerful, dominant businesses. We feel like meta and Amazon are pretty close to each. other in terms of longer-term future growth. And Alphabet is probably on the third rank, although it's really a great business. So starting with Amazon, they own the rails of e-commerce. And they have the ability to be the most convenient player. And for anyone who would want to be as convenient, as quick on delivery, and at the lowest cost, there's many billion dollars separating them

Starting point is 01:01:08 from that. And so I guess they would probably be still dominant in e-commerce in 10 years. And e-commerce is still growing and taking shares from traditional retail commerce. E-commerce as a percentage of retail sales in the US went from 10% to 16% over the five last years. And it's pretty much the same trend in the rest of the world. And this is growing I single digits. And so if you can keep your moat and get that growth, you could have quite good result. So we think Amazon is going to win in terms of e-commerce. Alphabet Google, they're probably the greatest business in modern history right now. They're a tool bridge on the internet search queries. They're a monopoly, even though they might not want to say that publicly. They're so powerful.

Starting point is 01:01:59 but the regulators are both ends on the search business. They're going through massive litigation, antitrust authorities in the US and the EU are on their back. The search and Google network is about two-thirds of their revenue. Gemini will definitely, like I said, previously get their fair share of search, but they will be maybe an oligopoly. And passing from a monopoly to an oligopoly, yeah, it's still, even though it's quite good, it's still a downgrade from your previous state. And so there could be a multiple contraction.

Starting point is 01:02:35 And if you think about everything else Google does, pretty much everything they does outside from search is having less margins. And so we could also expect margin contraction. So what we do at Medici, we would really make sure to bake in margin contraction and not rely too much on multiple expansion in order to figure out if we're willing to own it or not. As of today, it is still the case, but as we go further down the road, it might not. We try not to hold too many Alphabet Google and Meta at the same time, because both businesses are getting their profits from advertising, digital advertising.

Starting point is 01:03:15 So it's a way to mitigate risk and most of our digital advertising dollars in meta for that reason. I wanted to transition and talk just briefly about one more name. So when I first started out as an investor, it was easy for me to get attracted to higher growth. So looking at the metas, the alphabets, the Amazons of the world, and many other companies we could list. Because you think if a business isn't growing, then how can the stock perform well? Well, then you run into companies, one of which that we mentioned earlier was O'Reilly Automotive. And they seem to greatly defy this logic growing in the mid to high single digits. And the stock has been, it's performed spectacular. There's no doubt about it. Talk to us about O'Reilly Automotive and what makes them such a special business. Well, there's three or four dominant players in the US. There's Napa, there's advanced auto parts, AutoZone, and O'Reilly.

Starting point is 01:04:12 And O'Reilly, how they laid out their distribution is many of their DCs are really close to bigger cities. And it's been more expensive to build them that way. But what we get from that is they are able to deliver in a much more frequent way than even the other big players. And again, those big players that I just named drop, they are about 50% of the market. And so they're displacing regional players. And what's great about that business is many retailers, you need to have the best price to win. All righty and the industry of aftermarket automotive part, you want to get. on with your life when your car has a problem and if the parts are available right now

Starting point is 01:04:59 you're not willing to shop and see at two or three different place where will be the best price you just want to get on with your life and the same thing for the repairman the technician he wants to turn his base and he's passing the price of parts to the end user the driver and so if he can get the parts quickly he would turn his base faster and generally speaking the technicians that repair cars if they turn their base quickly they will end up having better salary and better bonus than if they're not. So having the good partner that can deliver to you quickly is critical and if you think about for example auto zone which is probably the best peer since by numbers they get great results too. Their

Starting point is 01:05:48 distribution has been planned for do-it-yourself so the people that own cars and want to repair their cars by themselves not so much for the technician industry so the do-it-for-me industry and if they want to win with that they have major distribution work to do and that will cost a lot they'll probably do it but they would need I guess at least five years to maybe narrow the gap with O'Reilly and so seeing that is great but again circling back to what I said previously we could have thought that the pie isn't growing there's so many auto stores in the US and there's not

Starting point is 01:06:29 any more growth but if you got a really greater ability to win versus your competitors what it ends up doing is you're displacing competitors so you can keep opening your stores your payback isn't going down much and if you see it going down, you can slow down on stores opening, but that's not what's happening with O'Reilly. They keep opening stores even though it seems mature and the return is still good. So even though the pie is not growing, well, they're just able to steal market share. And we see it. If you read the calls, you listen to the management, you ask them questions, they're clearly gaining shares. And so I guess we like the fact also that it's anti-cyclical. If there's a major

Starting point is 01:07:14 recession coming tomorrow. Yes, maybe the first month people will freeze and already will get bad results for that given quarter but they're probably the first one to get back because people just stop purchasing new cars and repairing their older cars and the direct beneficiary of that and so we want to be fundamental investor we want to remain calm when there's stuff happening in the economy and be able to make good decisions but having a few stocks like these ones that are more stable can help you remain calm in that kind of environment. So having an override in the portfolio is great to have.

Starting point is 01:07:55 Wonderful. Well, Pierre, I greatly appreciate you joining us on the show here today and being so generous with your time and sharing more on your process and holdings at Medici. Please give a handoff on how the audience can connect with you and learn more about Medici if they'd like and anything else you'd like to share while we're here. Well, thanks a lot, Clay, for having me. If people want to reach us, they can go on our website. It's gpsmediqi.ca. We've got a light English version,

Starting point is 01:08:27 but since, you know, the vast majority of our clients speak French, there would be an enhanced version with lots of media content in French. But, you know, the translators are pretty efficient today. So I guess any curious investors would be well advised to go on that section of the website. You can subscribe to our newsletter and we're able to serve investors residing in most major Canadian provinces. Great. Well, I'll be sure to get all that linked in the show notes. And Pierre, thank you again. I mean, this was great and I know the audience is really going to enjoy.

Starting point is 01:09:00 So thank you. Great. Thanks, Lee. Thank you for listening to TIP. Make sure to follow We Study Billioners 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 - TIP649: Owning Stocks for the Long Run w/ Pierre-Olivier Langevin

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