We Study Billionaires - The Investor’s Podcast Network - TIP762: 10 Lessons From Investing Legends w/ Kyle Grieve

Episode Date: October 19, 2025

On today’s episode, Kyle Grieve discusses ten investing principles from legends like Warren Buffett, Peter Lynch, and John Neff. Each lesson reveals how these masters built lasting wealth through timeless thinking. It’s a crash course in investing smarter, thinking clearer, and playing the long game. IN THIS EPISODE YOU’LL LEARN: 00:00:00 Intro 00:03:02 How Buffett’s brutal honesty became a blueprint for lasting success 00:07:22 How to apply Graham’s margin of safety in an intangible world 00:14:11 How Lynch turned everyday observation into powerful investing opportunities 00:24:04 How Fisher gained an edge using alternative information sources 00:27:31 Where Templeton cast his line to find rare opportunities 00:32:18 Why Neff proved a low P/E isn’t real value 00:37:10 How Howard Marks sharpens thinking in uncertain markets 00:41:42 Why Sleep & Zakaria guard their winners to compound wealth 00:53:03 How Pabrai uncovers hidden value 00:59:48 The power of Munger’s win-win mindset, both life and investing And so much more! Disclaimer: Slight discrepancies in the timestamps may occur due to podcast platform differences. BOOKS AND RESOURCES Join the exclusive ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TIP Mastermind Community⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to engage in meaningful stock investing discussions with Stig, Clay, Kyle, and the other community members. Follow Kyle on X and LinkedIn. Related ⁠⁠⁠⁠books⁠⁠⁠⁠ mentioned in the podcast. Ad-free episodes on our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Premium Feed⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. NEW TO THE SHOW? Get smarter about valuing businesses in just a few minutes each week through our newsletter, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Intrinsic Value Newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Check out our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠We Study Billionaires Starter Packs⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Follow our official social media accounts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠X (Twitter)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Browse through all our episodes (complete with transcripts) ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Try our tool for picking stock winners and managing our portfolios: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TIP Finance Tool⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Enjoy exclusive perks from our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠favorite Apps and Services⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn how to better start, manage, and grow your business with the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠best business podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. SPONSORS Support our free podcast by supporting our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠sponsors⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠: Simple Mining Linkedin Talent Solutions Alexa+ HardBlock Unchained Amazon Ads Vanta Abundant Mines Horizon ⁠Public.com⁠ - see the full disclaimer ⁠here⁠. Support our show by becoming a premium member! ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://theinvestorspodcastnetwork.supportingcast.fm⁠⁠⁠ Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://theinvestorspodcastnetwork.supportingcast.fm Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://theinvestorspodcastnetwork.supportingcast.fm Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://theinvestorspodcastnetwork.supportingcast.fm Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://theinvestorspodcastnetwork.supportingcast.fm Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://theinvestorspodcastnetwork.supportingcast.fm Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://theinvestorspodcastnetwork.supportingcast.fm Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://theinvestorspodcastnetwork.supportingcast.fm Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://theinvestorspodcastnetwork.supportingcast.fm

You're listening to TIP. What if you could peek inside the minds of the greatest investors in history? People who've beaten the market not just for a few years, but for decades. From Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger to Peter Lynch, Nick Sleep and John Neff, these legends didn't just make money. They reshaped how we think about investing, business, life, and decision making. And today, I'm breaking down timeless lessons that helped them do it. In this episode, I'll share what Buffett's honesty and transparency can teach us about

long-term trust and opportunity. How Graham's margin of safety still applies in a world that's completely dominated by intangible assets, and how Peter Lynch used incredibly simple observation to uncover billion-dollar companies that were hiding in plain sight. We'll also explore Philip Fisher's scuttle bet method for gaining an information edge, John Templeton's contrarian genius for finding value where just no one else dared to look, and John Neff's flexible definition of value that just went beyond low P.E's. Then we'll dive into the mental frameworks that helped make some of these great investors just so extraordinary.

We'll look at things such as Howard Mark's second-order thinking, Nick Sleep and Kay Sakaria's art of holding on to winners, Moni's provides I for hidden value, and then finally, Charlie Munger's philosophy of a win-win relationship, in business, and in life. Each of these lessons is heavily shaped the way that I personally invest and think. And I'll walk you through the key takeaways that you can apply right now, whether you're running a business, managing your portfolio, or just simply trying to become a better decision maker. So if you're an investor looking to sharpen your edge, a lifelong learner just fascinated by what drives consistent excellence, or someone searching for practical ways to think more clearly

and act more rationally, this episode is just for you. You'll walk away with tools and stories that have stood the test of time, insights that separate the true legends from just the good. Now, let's get right into this week's episode on My 10 Lessons from Investing Legends. Since 2014 and through more than 180 million downloads, we've 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, Kyle Greve. Welcome to the Investors podcast.

I'm your host, Kyle Greve, and today I'll be discussing 10 lessons from value investing legends. Since I spend so much of my time trying to uncover subtleties that legendary investors have employed to achieve their incredible results, I thought it would be a good idea to maybe break down one major lesson from each of them. I've intentionally chosen ones that I think have impacted others and myself, but might not necessarily be the most obvious choice in some of the cases. I could easily spend an entire episode on any of these investors, and I have done so on nearly every investor I'll discuss today. But today I'm going to focus on these 10 timeless lessons that I think I've learned from investors just at the apex of their profession. Now, the first person I'm going to cover is,

none other than the goat himself, Warren Buffett. So it was hard to choose what exactly I wanted to share from Buffett because when it comes down to what I've learned from Buffett, I can't help but think of that great Jim Sinigal quote. He was asked if he learned a lot from Soul Price about the retail industry. And Jim replied, no, that's inaccurate. I learned everything. I have learned nearly everything I know about investing from researching Warren Buffett. But the lesson that I chose from Buffett is just how to succeed with maximum integrity,

honesty, and transparency. You see, Warren Buffett isn't admired just for his monumental gifts in investing and value creation. He's also admired for his character. He's a person that you can genuinely trust to put shareholders' needs above his own, to be honest about his mistakes, and to not hide or sugarcoat things when it's obvious that he's made a mistake. The thing about Buffett's honesty and transparency is that I believe they really contributed significantly, if not entirely, to his success. Without his honesty and integrity, I think it's unlikely that he would have continued

continued to receive fantastic opportunities in private businesses, which he has added to Berkshire's list of fully owned companies. Warren certainly has a history of being out there and searching for ideas, but he's also so well-liked and admired by others that people will go out of their way to make introductions on Buffett's behalf. And they do this simply because he's just built such an excellent reputation over the years that making a deal with him can be very easy if you're very well aligned with how he thinks. Now one notable example of this is a little known subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway called Forrest River, an RV manufacturer. So picture this. It's 2005. Warren Buffett is relaxing in his office, pouring over annual reports. A two-page fax arrives at his

office. Warren curiously reads the facts from a man named Peter Legal. He explains that he'd love to sell his RV manufacturing business to Berkshire Hathaway. The price, $800 million. Warren Buffett didn't know a thing about the RV industry, but given what he learned from the facts, he began doing some due diligence. The next day, Buffett made him an offer, and within a week, legal was in Omaha to shake on a deal after 20-minute meeting. Legal said regarding that agreement, it was easier to sell my business than to renew my driver license. Now, there's just aren't that many people on earth who conduct business in this way, and I think it's a significant reason why Warren has been successful over the years. Business owners know that when Berkshire

requires them, they can remain in control of the business without worrying that Buffett's going to come in and, you know, lay off half of their workforce or massively change their culture. They also know that Warren's very likely to hold on to that company forever. And if the business requires additional capital, Warren will gladly provide it, assuming the returns on investment are adequate. Transparency and trust offer additional benefits that aren't discussed very much as well. For one thing, trust, just like a good business, compounds over time. Every cent you, drop in the trust jar today will be worth multiple times it's worth if you continue to add to that bank. Warren has always been a trustworthy person, even back in his 20s when he started the Buffett Partnerships.

And that trust has evolved into its current state, and it's not an advantage that competitors can easily attack. Another interesting point about transparency is that it can really save a company a significant amount of money and headaches. A good example of this is Warren's own shareholder letters. So since he has nothing to hide, he's written them the entire time. And they're always full of a lot of honesty and transparency. If he had things to hide, he might be forced to just hire a PR firm that can charge exorbitant fees

to clean up any of his messes. And then lastly, his high levels of honesty attract just like-minded individuals, which is why Berkshire Hathaway has so many CEOs that are just absolute superstars in its ranks. Talent just attracts talent,

and people are well aware of this. Lou Simpson is an excellent example of a tremendous investor with an incredible track record and a long history of working at Berkshire Hathaway. However, there's been several high-performing individuals who have worked or currently worked for Berkshire, and I'm sure there'll be several more.

The common saying is that we are the average of the five people that we spend most time around. Buffett knew this, so his nature allowed him to be surrounded by people who continue to push them and make them even better. If you can adopt Buffett's traits of trust and transparency, chances are you'll attract some very high-quality individuals into your life that will make you better, too. One such high-quality individual who pulled Warren into his orbit was Benjamin Graham. And while I wanted to get fancy with a lesson from Graham that wasn't super obvious, just his bedrock principle of margin of safety was just too hard to pass up.

So the margin of safety is a simple principle, buy assets for less than their worth. It's such a simple lesson, but surprisingly, few investors actually use it to help avoid making big mistakes and taking on too much risk. While the few investors who do consider margin of safety assume that margin of safety is embedded in things like assets and boring, you know, capital intensive legacy businesses, there is definitely a margin of safety in many areas of investing, not just in these boring companies with outdated business models. So while Graham loved using a company's balance sheet to find a margin of safety,

there are more areas inside of a business that you can use to search for a margin of safety. Earnings predictability is one way of looking at it. You can have a capital. Capital-light business that has a ridiculously high book value, and the company can still have a very large margin of safety. So let's take a simple example here. We'll call a business fast grow to illustrate. So let's say this company is in the growth stage of its development, but the company also has a loyal customer base and very high switching costs. The business is expected to grow its earnings per share by about 26% annually with good visibility for the next three years. So the company currently has an EPS of a dollar and trades at only 10 times earnings.

Now, this implies a share price of just $10. In three years, the company is expected to have an EPS of $2. Let's also note that the business has very low tangible assets and trades at five times book value. It also has negative working capital. So using Graham's traditional market of safety of looking at networking capital, this business is not interesting at all. But we know a few things. So a business growing this fast probably shouldn't trade a 10 times earning multiple. What should it have?

You know, probably something higher than the market as of, August 7th, the P.E. of the S&P. 500 is around 29. So let's say, you know, 30 is a better number. Now that we have a better idea of a terminal multiple, we think the business is going to be worth about $60 in three years' time. The business converts 100% of earnings to cash just to keep things simple. So using an 8% discount rate, this business is worth $47. So we're achieving a massive margin of safety without considering assets at all. Now, in this case, if we can buy the business for $10, we have a massive, massive margin of safety. And that, The margin of safety allows the company to make several hiccups and screw-ups, and we still won't lose

any money. Now, what might some of those mistakes look like? So I came up with three hypotheticals. So let's say the terminal year comes around. The market turns bearish, and we have to use a lower terminal multiple. Let's say it just stays at 10 times earnings. In that case, the business is still worth $20, double our initial buy-in. Heck, even if the multiple cuts in half, we're still breaking even.

Second is the business's growth stalls. So let's say EPS growth gets cut in half to just 13. percent. In three years, the EPS is now about $1.50. Perhaps now the PE of 10 makes a little more sense, and the business is now worth $15. We still haven't lost money. We actually made 50%. Now, worst case scenario is the whole growth thesis just completely falls apart. Let's say the business is not growing. It's taking on debt to just stay afloat. Let's say EPS halves to 50 cents, and the PE multiple contracts to five times, as it's just no longer seen as a growth business. Now, yeah, you're losing money as the stock price is trading for just a quarter.

of what you bought it for. So these are just a few scenarios that could happen to a business that aligns a lot more closely with what I specifically look for and how I view a margin of safety. So traditional value investors such as Graham would argue that fast growth has no margin of safety simply because its tangible assets are so low. However, we live in a market where intangible assets simply reigns supreme. And examining the margin of safety in the way that I just outlined is an excellent way to measure the risk involved in any bet. One interesting aspect of Benjamin Graham was that he was a highly quantitative investor. And what quantitative investors often overlook is how a company's fundamentals can also contribute to its margin of safety. So a company's business

model can offer a margin of safety that might not be visible to a quant. Factors such as switching costs, network effects, economies of scale, or even brand can all make a business far more valuable than its financial statement might indicate. Or what about culture? Over the long term, a business's actual value will depend on the culture that has been established. within it. A culture of innovation and excellence will always outperform one that stifles innovation and pushes out its top performers. Let's suppose you were to find two businesses today with similar margin of safety. In that case, chances are the business with the excellent culture probably has additional hidden variables and further increases its margin of safety. The company with a poor culture

may look cheap on paper in the short term, but over the long term, this is the business that's most likely to deteriorate. Now, there's an additional value. valuable lesson from Benjamin Graham that I really wanted to share as well, which is crucial to understand. And that's his experience of just holding GEICO. So, Geico is fascinating because it was a holding that generated the majority of Graham's net worth. There's no way to know for sure, but I've read that GEICO stake made up over 50% of his net worth once he retired. Now, the most interesting thing about GEICO was just that it was at odds with many of the investing tenants that he put forth in the intelligent investor. I came up with three here. So the first one was broad diversification.

So since Geico made up nearly 50% of his net worth, he wasn't really practicing much diversification at all when it came to Geico. The second is just his reliance on investing in cigar butts. Geico may have started as a cigar butt, but it really turned into a compounding engine, which wasn't traditionally what Graham was known for looking for. And the third one here is just his principle of selling when price reaches intrinsic value. So this one's a little bit tougher to say because it's really impossible to find any data on what Geico traded for for the nearly 25 years that Graham held.

The business. However, my assumption is that it's pretty impossible that Geico's price never exceeded its intrinsic value over, you know, 25 years. I just find that hard to believe. Now, here's what Benjamin Graham himself wrote about his thoughts on Geico. Ironically enough, the aggregate of profits accruing from the single investment decision far exceeded the sum of all the others realized through 20 years of wide-ranging operations in the partner's specialized fields involving much investigation, endless pondering, and countless individual decisions. Are there morals to the story of value to the indeligent investor? One, is that one lucky break or one supremely shrewd decision, can we even tell them apart,

may count for more than a lifetime of journeyman efforts? So the lesson here is that you can be flexible on some of your core principles if the opportunity is right. Next, we move on to someone who taught me just so much about identifying new stock ideas. and that's Peter Lynch. So the beauty of Peter Lynch is in the simplicity of one of his methods for just finding sock ideas. And that's through simple real life observation. The overarching point that Lynch made was to invest in what you already know. This meant you didn't need to mentally overreach to understand a potential investment. But let's get into some of the more

specifics of how you can use this to your advantage. So the first step is to do something such as looking at your shopping habits. There are a few ways to take advantage of this. First, you can just look at your monthly bills. Find out where you're spending all your money and determine if you can easily stop spending money there or switch to something cheaper. If you're finding that there's products or services that you just can't replace or just don't want to quit using, you might find an excellent investing idea to dig into. That is, of course, assuming the business is publicly traded. Second is just observing where you shop. So even if you don't shop for a specific product, if you're in an area such as your local shopping mall that has several different stores, just monitor

which ones are the busiest. One of the TIP mastermind community members did this to find an idea, which was Dutch Brothers. So every day, he'd pass one of their locations and see just cars lined up literally in going into the street with people who wanted to buy beverages from Dutch brothers. I've used this as well to find one of my biggest investing successes in Eritzia. So when I first started learning about the business case for Eritzia, I would look in stores whenever I was near one, and I began asking women I knew about their experiences at Eritzia as well. And it was super helpful in helping me understand the strength of their brand.

I also use this as a monitoring tool. So whenever I'm in a city with an Eritzia location, such as Hawaii or New York or Toronto, I always try to make it a priority to walk into the store to see how busy it is. And I can honestly say that they're always busy, which is an excellent sign. A few other points to consider when using this method that Lynch made sure to emphasize. So first thing is when you travel, notice what stores are full and which ones are empty. Another one is to make sure that you're looking for things such as long lines, new store openings, rapid shelf turnover. And then lastly, just compare your observations with multiple locations to see if it's a real trend and not just a trend in a single location, which obviously isn't interesting at all.

So the next one I'd like to observe is how my wife spends her money. So my wife loves shopping a lot more than I do. So I'm constantly peppering out with questions about interesting products she's considering or even, you know, new e-commerce sites she's exploring. And this can give you a vast range of options. For instance, when I own In Mode, a facial aesthetics machine manufacturer, I recall my wife telling me that she knew one of her mother's friends who had used one of their machines and had a very positive experience with it. Now, this helped me understand that In Mode had a decent chance of continuing to scale

their products since at least one of their customers liked what they were offering. Another great way my wife has helped me is just simply by asking questions about specific brands that she knows better than I do. So I've already mentioned Eritia and my wife grew up literally. literally five minutes away from the very first Eritzia location. Additionally, she's been shopping at Eritzia for, you know, 20 plus years. So she's a gold mine of information to just help understand how Eritzia has created this customer loyalty.

And on my own, I just would never have probably gotten these insights. So it's really, really helpful. Another way to find new investment ideas is just to observe the products and services that your children enjoy. For instance, my son loves a few things. So I got five here. One, YouTube, which is owned by Alphabet. Two, Disney, a publicly traded company.

Three, Hot Wheels, owned by Mattel. Four, Lego, not publicly traded. And five, Fisher Price, also owned by Mattel. So with that information, I can see if maybe there's an investment case for Alphabet, Disney, or Mattel. I could tell you right off the bat that Disney just doesn't interest me. Alphabet could be interesting. And I checked Mattel, but it has 10-year compounded annual growth rates of revenue at 0.15%

and EPS of only 2.2%. So that instantly tells me there's nothing to be interested in. As for Lego, it's too bad as private because sometimes I actually wonder if I like Lego more than my son does. Now, I did a check on Lego anyways to see what kind of growth that it might have or what's disclosed even though it's a private business. Unfortunately, its metrics are also very uninteresting if they are indeed true. So the numbers I found was that revenue actually decreased by 2% in 2023 and in that same

year, operating profits declined by about 5%. So numbers like that caused me to have a lot. have zero interest. Now, out of all these, Alphabet would probably be the one that I find the most interesting. However, since the business is just so large, I would still probably take a pass. But, you know, according to Reuters, YouTube could be valued as something like $500 billion. Now, to be honest, if YouTube was spun out, I would probably have a very, very close look. So not only does my son love it, but I also love YouTube and use it very often. I also reuse it as a research tool as part of my job. TIP is obviously also very present on YouTube. You might actually actually

actually be watching or listening to this on YouTube right now. Let's take a quick break and hear from today's sponsors. All right. I want you guys to imagine spending three days in Oslo at the height of the summer. You've got long days of daylight, incredible food, floating saunas on the Oslo Fjord, and every conversation you have is with people who are actually shaping the future. That's what the Oslo Freedom Forum is. From June 1st through the 3rd, 2026, the Oslo Freedom Forum is entering its 18th year bringing together activists, technologists, journalists, investors, and builders from all over the world, 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, policy makers, 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 have. 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. 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 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 netsuite.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. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses of businesses around the world and 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S. from brands just getting started to household

names. It gives you everything you need in one place, from inventory to payments to analytics. So you're not juggling a bunch of different platforms. You can build a beautiful online store with hundreds of ready-to-use templates, and Shopify is packed with helpful AI tools that write product descriptions and even enhance your product photography. 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. Now, this transitions to the last area where I like to look for ideas, which is from your job. So I use several services on a very regular basis. And a few of these off just the top of my head. I use Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Drive, Slack, Last Pass, Riverside, and Adobe Audition. Now, the owners of the first three are Alphabet. Salesforce own Slack. LastPass and Riverside are private. And audition is owned by Adobe. Now, we've already covered Alphabet, so I'm not going to go

over it again. Salesforce and Adobe are actually pretty interesting. So looking at the 10-year keggers for Salesforce first, revenues 27%, EPS 28%, and free cash flow, 31%. They have no debt either, and they're led still by their founder, Mark Benioff. Adobe is buying back shares, has a 10-year kegger of 13% revenue growth and 14% earnings per share. So out of those two, I like the growth of a business like Salesforce, but I will admit that I just don't know that much about the company. Perhaps I should put it on the wait list. However, before I would ever decide to invest in a business like Salesforce, I'd have to conduct

pretty extensive research and due diligence, which brings us to her next investor, whom I consider to be just the master of that area. And that person is Philip Fisher. So he wrote the excellent book, Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits, which I discussed in a lot of detail on TIP 646. And one of my biggest lessons from Mr. Fisher regards the power of Scuttlebutt. So Scuttlebutt is just one of the most potent ways that investors can gain an information edge. Scuttlebutt is simply learning more about a specific business by using alternative sources of information. Everyone has access to things such as a company's public documents. Therefore, reading them or other easily accessible information on the internet won't provide you

an informational edge. It's definitely required, but again, it won't provide you an edge. But if you speak to other people who are involved in the business, the industry, or even the company, you know, the competition of the business, you can learn a heck of a lot. So in the book, The Sleuth Investor, the author discusses examining three different parties to Sleuth within a company. They are customers, employees, and suppliers. So I'll zero in on customers here because I think that's the most critical area to look at. So when it comes to customers, there are three specific types to consider. There's the end user.

There's the person who decides whether to sign a check sort of purchase a product. And then there's the check signers themselves. You can also look at things like current customers, former customers, and potential customers. Speaking to any of these people will yield very high value information about the relationships that customers have with the business. The primary purpose of Scuttlebut is to gather non-financial information about a business. So it enables you to learn about factors such as competitive advantages, management quality, growth prospects, and potential risks. Other great people that would be interesting to talk to would be suppliers who can just

reveal the company's bargaining power, payment reputation, and reliability. You can talk to competitors who are often the best critics as there have no problem highlighting where a company is going to be strong or weak. you can talk to employees, current or former, which can provide incredibly valuable insights into things like culture, management effectiveness, and innovation. And lastly, people like industry experts who can offer a lot of context about trends, regulation, and market dynamics. So I try to stay informed about all of the businesses that I own, but, you know, I must admit that it's pretty challenging. A CEO of a company is likely to know who all of their customers are,

but they're very unlikely to share that information as that's an action that's frowned upon. Suppliers can also be very tough to find simply because it's not obvious who the suppliers are for a specific company. Competitors are probably the easiest to figure out because anyone involved in the business won't have a problem sharing that information with you. When you look at current employees, personally, I find it nearly impossible in my experience. People just don't seem to want to speak about their own business, probably just to avoid getting into any trouble. Industry experts are not hard to get information from either. So industry experts can be found just all over the internet, but you have to understand some. of the incentives of the industry experts.

Generally speaking, they're incentivized to talk up the industry. So if you find one to talk, remember that very, very closely. I recall finding a coal expert who was widely available on the internet guy was all over YouTube and podcasts. And while he always appeared to be very thoughtful, given his various positions within the industry in terms of investments, it was evident that talking up the commodity was in his best interest. So our next lesson comes from Sir John Templeton.

And that's to fish where there's just no fisherman. My idea came from this when reading the book The John Templeton Way. So Templeton began investing in Japan in the 1950s, nearly three decades before the major bubble began to form. And he was investing in Japan during a time when just nobody was willing to touch Japanese stocks with a 10-foot pull. But John saw incredible value at this time. So in the early 1960s, the Japanese economy was growing at an average of 10%, and the U.S. economy

was growing at an average rate of only 4%. In other words, the Japanese economy was expanding two and a half times faster than the U.S. economy. But many stocks in Japan cost 80% less than the average of the stocks in the United States. So in a written report in 1960, there were two reasons why foreign investors refused to invest in Japan despite these cheap valuations. The first one was that there is too many fluctuation in the stock price, and the second was that there just wasn't enough information. So this really got me thinking, you know, where could other investors in today's markets find areas of the market that have large amounts of volatility and lack information? And if you

look hard enough, there's always areas of the market like this. My personal choice has been microcaps. Instead of looking at the massive U.S. market, I stick with my home country, Canada, and in Canada, specifically, I look at microcaps. So whenever I'm speaking with members of the TIP mastermind community, they often ask about microcaps and how I research them. And it's ironic because one of the main impediments I hear from people is that they specifically don't research microcaps, specifically because there's a lot less information out there on them. So if you look at the popular, your news or, you know, analysis sites such as Seeking Alpha, you're going to be very disappointed at what you find when trying to research microcaps. And that's because barely any analysts cover

microcaps because they know that funds or their readers just can't or don't want to buy them. So that is why when you look at a business such as, you know, Alphabet or Amazon, you're never going to learn new analysis, which can help inform you and give you an edge over others. But the problem with investing this way is that you're investing in very well-known businesses and there's just less inefficiencies. I'm never going to say that there aren't inefficiencies in large and mega caps, you know, consider meta for further proof of that. But I will say that there are areas of the market where there's just these massive

inefficiencies and they occur a lot more often. And in my opinion, the part of the market that I think I can understand that is regularly inefficiently priced are microcaps. This is also backed by research. In the book, What Works on Wall Street by James O'Shaughnessy, he writes, between 1964 and 2009, if as a CompuStat scenario one illustrates, you required stock prices greater than a dollar, but put no return limit and allowed for stocks with missing data to be included, then the portfolio earned an average compounded annual return of 28%. Yet, when you require

that all stocks have share prices of greater than a dollar and have no missing return data, and have limited monthly return to any security to 2,000% per month, as we see with scenario two, returns decline by approximately 10%, and the portfolio earns an average compounded return of 18.2%. So this second number, even though it's obviously a lot lower than the first one, was way higher than other market cap desiles. Now, I'm sure that some investors have identified other maybe rare aspects of the market that are inefficient to exploit. And if you look close enough, long enough, you're probably going to find areas that you can find very easy to understand, but might not be understandable by the average investor, and that's an area that you could exploit.

So the key is really in understanding where to fish where there are no fishermen. There's four of them. So the first one is to find areas of the market where information is just hard to find. The second is that the higher the volatility, the better. The third is that if you can't find any analysis, you're probably on the right path. And fourth, try to find a community of people who specifically try to exploit some of these mispricings. Today, there's tons of communities out there that specialize in pretty much anything.

that you're interested in. If you can find and get access to those communities, you can usually access pretty small groups of people trying to find inefficiencies in the market together. John Templeton in his time just didn't have access to this, so he had to do it all by himself. I can reach out to many, many people to find interesting ideas in microcaps. And since there's just so many ideas, the idea flow just never really ends. The interesting thing about inefficiencies is that they rarely last. Microcaps tend to grow through cycles of popularity and unpopularity. In Templeton's case, once the rest of the world started catching on to just how much of a bargain Japanese stocks were, they began bidding up the prices, which removed that inefficiency.

But by that point, Templeton was long gone. So if you exploit inefficiencies, you must keep your ear to the ground to observe, you know, when they are disappearing. Otherwise, you risk holding the bag. And if you're holding the bag, you either break even if you had the right entry point, you lose money if the cycle goes down more than you thought, or you have to wait a multi-year time period until that cycle changes to make a profit. Now, the next investor I want to highlight is John Neff, who I just released an episode about on TIP 747. One of my favorite aspects of John Neff

was that he was an investor with a very value-based approach, but he also wasn't afraid to buy businesses that I think most traditional value investors wouldn't touch. So Neff considered himself a low PE investor, and that's definitely where the bulk of his money was made. However, he also understood that flexibility was just crucial to achieving superior long-term returns. He owned names like Home Depot that traded over 20 times earnings and even own names like IBM, Xerox, and Intel during the latter part of the nifty 50 years. So Neff wasn't afraid to take positions in businesses where he found value. Now, this is a valuable principle to consider for investors who might limit themselves to a single investing strategy. If you're only looking at

businesses with single digit P.E. For instance, there will be boom and bust periods in your opportunity set. And it, you know, it's totally okay to invest that way. People like Bob Robody have made a career out of investing in this manner. However, I think you really broaden your horizons if you view value the way that Neff did. And that's to find undervalue assets rather than focusing exclusively on low PE. And this is a lesson that I've tracked for nearly my entire investing career. While I do enjoy investing in stocks with single-digit PEs, I'm also attracted to businesses that might have a P.E. that exceeds 30, but for good reason. Some businesses are just so exceptional and resilient that they simply deserve to be priced higher than a lower quality alternative.

You know, a sticky SaaS business that is growing its recurring revenue at 30% per year and has nearly all of its revenue as recurring revenue deserves a premium versus a cigar butt that is trading, you know, cheap based on its assets. So let's start. into this topic and some more detail. So let's make up a hypothetical cigar about business. We're going to call it Ugly Duckling or just Ugly for short. So Ugly is a discount shoe retailer that buys leftover inventory from failed brands and resells it in outlet style stores. So its competitive advantage is just, it's cheap. And it has no loyal customers, it's got no in-house brand, sales are lumpy and completely unpredictable. Since the business is

a low-cost provider, its gross margins typically range in the 15 to 20% range. But the company is struggling to grow because its operating results just aren't strong, and banks are very hesitant to lend it any money. Going to the capital markets is an option, but their growth prospects are so dire that it just might not work out the way management wants. However, if you examine the balance sheet, they don't require much debt to operate. They own a significant amount of their stores, and they have substantial amounts of inventory. So if you were to look at this on a balance sheet basis as maybe a liquidation play, you would make money just by selling all the business's assets rather than keeping the business running. So what's a business like this worth? It might trade at five times earnings, attracting value investors to the company. Perhaps the catalyst would just be some sort of liquidation event of the

entire business. Or maybe a new leadership could come in and improve the business and identify new ways to expand. The point is the business is cheap and I think kind of deserves to be. Could this business be worth 10 times earnings resulting in a double if they may be strung together a few good quarters? I doubt it. Let's look at a business we'll call Cloud Nest. So this business is a cloud-based collaboration software for small businesses. Customers pay a yearly fee for project management, file sharing, and communication. The business has 95% of its customers on multi-year contracts. Revenue is about as predictable as the sun rising and setting, and gross margins are 75% and climbing as the business onboards new customers and tests out its pricing power.

Customers are extremely loyal with retention rates of about 98%. The market is just massive, as they've only penetrated about 1% of small businesses in North America. Additionally, the company is developing new modules that current customers are willing to pay more for as they expand their offerings. The business is hugely profitable, boasting 25% net margins, and net income has grown out of 30% kegger for the last three years showing no signs of slowing down. Now, do you think Cloud Nest has any business trading at a five times earning multiple? Ten times seems like an absolute steal. Heck, a business like this trading at, you know, 20 times its value could still yield excellent results if it can continue growing at those rates while, improving its margins. So let's say this business can continue growing that income at 30% for the next

three years. That means EPS will more than double over a three-year period. So if you bought it at 20 times earnings, your investment should double with absolutely no multiple expansion needed. However, business like this can easily justify, you know, 30 or 40 times earnings. That would add a substantial amount to the investment. This is why growth should be factored in to any investment and reflected in stock price. Now, let's move on here and imagine that the year is 1999. And Howard Marks is at a quiet dinner in Midtown Manhattan. The NASDAQ has just tripled in the last three years, and the air is just thick with the optimism of innovative technology. Everyone at Howard's table is eagerly discussing dot-com stocks, young billionaire founders, fast-moving IPOs, and the

fortunes that were made in a matter of weeks. Someone leans over to Marx and asks, Howard, may I ask what your hottest tech pick is right now? Mark slowly smiles, shrugs, and says none. It's a baffling response to most people in the room not owning dot-com stocks is complete madness. But this is why Marx has been so successful for so long. He doesn't think like everyone else. Instead of asking what everyone else was asking, which was what stock should I buy that will continue going up in price, he was asking what happens when everyone else buys a stock and I don't. So the question everyone else was asking is an example of first order thinking. It's a simple and direct way of thinking. Most people concluded that companies growing rapidly in terms of

revenue or those even with just an idea that revenue would increase in the future were the ones that were becoming these market darlings. Therefore, they were the ones that people should buy. But second order thinking is much more complex and requires more mental energy. Marks would look at the problem this way. Since everyone knows the company, company is growing fast, there will be significant buying pressure. As buying pressure increases, the stock price will rise. So the question wasn't, is the company any good? It was, what is the best decision to make knowing that everyone is piling into the stock? Marks wasn't looking at the surface question. He was, you know, peering and looking at an extra layer deeper.

Examining factors such as the expectations embedded in the stock price, which gave him a much more accurate view of the market psychology. Let's now look back even further and go back to the mid-1800. hundreds, when thousands of people rushed to California to live out the American dream by finding a very precious resource, gold. So Americans headed to California in droves, carrying pickaxes and shovels. And they did this with visions of glittering fortunes. They were thinking in the purest form of first order logic. Gold is valuable. Go to where the gold is and find it yourself. Now, in 1853, a Bavarian immigrant arrived in San Francisco. His name was Levi Strauss.

Instead of thinking about gold like everybody else, he noticed a need that was missing for all gold diggers. This was a pair of just good pants that wouldn't rip after a few days or weeks after digging. Instead of joining the gold-finding frenzy, he decided to make his fortune by supplying the prospectors with just strong pants that could withstand a lot of punishment. And this is how Levi's jeans was born. So Levi Strauss was thinking in the second order. And instead of taking the risk of finding gold or just going completely broke like many people did, he simply just supplied the diggers with the equipment they needed to attempt to find their own riches. And in the process, he built an incredible business that remains in existence today 172 years later. Now we get back to Marx. So the people at his dinner most likely ignored his comment. They went all in on the dot-com bubble. And a year later, many of these people were seeking a new career or employees.

employer as their funds and fortunes had evaporated. Marks, by contrast, would continue to compound his investors' capital successfully for many more decades. And Marx did this by investing in the less obvious deals that everyone on the street didn't love. And that's really the lesson in Mark's brilliance. Don't just ask what will happen, but continue to ask what will happen after that. Just do that for a few decades and you're bound to find some incredible investments with just large margin of safety and a more than adequate upside. So my favorite use case for this is determining whether I'd be taking too much risk by buying an investment at a given price. So purchasing an expensive business means a business is just

price for perfection. And when a company is priced that way, it must continue to meet sky high expectations. The problem with this line of thinking is that businesses will stumble. You know, regulars will get in the way, the economy will throw a curveball, or management will face some sort of crisis. So I like using second order thinking to determine if a business's expectations are set correct. Poor quality businesses are likely to fail to meet expectations. High quality businesses tend to beat expectations alarmingly regularly. I also employ second order thinking to observe enterprises that don't meet expectation in the short term, but are likely to improve in the long run.

Next, we encounter two exceptional investors in Nick Sleep and Kay Sakaria, who founded the Nomad Investment Partnership. These two made an investing career out of riding just three key stocks and doing as little tinkering as possible while holding them. And the lesson here is simple, but not easy to put in practice. And that's to treat your winners as businesses that you keep, not ones that you trade in and out of. And these aren't investments you just look to, you know, double your money, then run to the next idea. 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 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 Vantta. That's not just faster compliance, it's more time for growth. If I were running a startup or scaling a team today, this is exactly 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, 4X, crypto, and beyond. With a simple and intuitive platform, you can trade from anywhere, right from your phone. Deposit with a minimum of $100 and experience the fast, accessible futures trading you've been waiting for. See a trading opportunity, you'll be able to trade it in just two clicks once your account is open. Not sure if you're ready, not a problem. Plus 500 gives you an unlimited, risk-free demo account with charts and

analytic tools for you to practice on. With over 20 years of experience, Plus 500 is your gateway to the markets. Visit plus500.com to learn more. Trading in futures involves risk of loss and is not suitable for everyone. Not all applicants will qualify. Plus 500, It's trading with a plus. Billion dollar investors don't typically park their cash in high-yield savings accounts. Instead, they often use one of the premier passive income strategies for institutional investors, private credit. Now, the same passive income strategy is available to investors of all sizes, thanks to the Fundrise

income fund, which has more than $600 million invested in a 7.97% distribution rate. With traditional savings yields falling, it's no wonder private credit has grown to be a trillion-dollar asset class in the last few years. Visit fundrise.com slash WSB to invest in the Fundrise income fund in just minutes. The fund's total return in 2025 was 8%, and the average annual total return since inception is 7.8%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, current distribution rate as of 1231, 2025. Carefully consider the investment material before investing, including objectives, risks, charges, and expenses.

This and other information can be found in the income funds prospectus at fundrise.com slash income. This is a paid advertisement. All right. Back to the show. Sleep in Zakaria spent their entire investing career looking for a very specific business model. These were what was called scale economies shared.

It states that when a business grows, it passes on its scale benefits to its customers rather than retaining them for their own use. The three businesses that they rode were Brookshire Hathaway, Costco, and Amazon. Now, I've tried to grasp whether this is a business template that appeals to me, and I concluded that I would never say no to a business model like that, but I'm also not going to go out of my way to exclusively search for business models that fit the scale economy shared model that Nomad was obsessed with. Instead, I search for businesses that I can ride for hopefully multi-year and maybe even multi-decade time periods, and businesses that are likely to just increase in intrinsic value over my holding period. This is what Sleep and Zaccario were trying to do. They basically whittled down all of their decisions to these three stocks that I just listed.

And the stocks were just so good that they were able to extend their holding periods for longer and longer period of time. And even since they closed their fund in 2014, they still hold the vast majority of their net worth. in these three names. But they didn't reach this conclusion overnight. They invested in other businesses that even shared the same business model, but didn't quite make the cut. So there are other companies, you know, Air Asia, Carpet Right, A-SOS, that were in the portfolio at one point along with several other, you know, classic value investments,

trading at a fraction of liquidation value. But over time, Sleep and Zikari observed that the businesses that were at the top of the rung, even within the ultra-specific business model, were the ones that deserved most of their capital. I enjoy reviewing my top three businesses and noting if they exhibit any specific characteristics. So my top three positions make up 42% of my portfolio. And to be honest, they don't really share a business model between the three. And I'm perfectly fine with that. So even though I find nomads approach interesting, it's not the actual business model that taught me the most significant lesson. It's simply to find businesses that you can ride for extended periods of time and make sure to hold

them as long as they continue to perform well. And in that sense, yes, I think I'm doing that pretty well. All the businesses in my top three generate a significant amount of cash. And when I think about them, they do actually share a few similarities. So I came up with five. So the first one is that they don't pay a regular dividend. Second, they don't meaningfully buy back shares. Third, they consistently invest more and more in growth. Fourth, they don't allow cash to grow excessively. And fifth is that their modes are continuing to expand. Now, these are all characteristics of businesses that can compound value simply because they can reinvest all of their cash flow back into their business at high rates of return. So while their free cash flow numbers may not look

amazing, I'm actually okay with that because they're constantly using that cash to reinvest into their business at very high rates of return. So this is a business model that really attracts me the most. While many value investors are looking for businesses that are growing, you know, maybe in the high single digits or low double digits, they're also accepting that returns are going to come from things like multiple expansion, buybacks, or even dividends. I just prefer to not rely on them as much to give me returns. While I love buying businesses on a cheap multiple, one of the great benefits of compounders is just the steadiness in which they can compound capital.

So for that reason, they tend to carry higher multiples and maintain those higher multiples. As of today, the forward earnings multiple on my top three businesses are 29 times, 41 times, and 90 times. So the third business, which I won't name with the 90 times multiple, is pretty distorted by the fact that it's growing so rapidly, which penalizes it very significantly under IFRS due to significant depreciation and amortization. So the multiple gets cut significantly when I make a lot of adjustments, but it still is a pretty high ratio. So you'll notice that the first four points mean businesses are, you know, just optimized for growth. They aren't trying to grow a steady dividend to, you know, draw in capital. They know that the best use for capital is to invest in the businesses that they're already in. The risk of owning businesses like this relates purely to just the future and the unknown.

Once the market no longer believes that these businesses will grow at high rates, they will no longer be given a premium multiple. This is my most significant concern. My primary maintenance tasks are basically, you know, tracking growth and observing the direction that things are moving. I learned this the hard way with Evolution A.B, an I gaming business. So this business was one that I expected to grow but just failed to meet the market's expectations. So any business that is expected to grow but fails to meet the market's expectations is going to experience a pretty big price drop.

The key is to just try to stay ahead of the market. Let's suppose that you think a business is in maybe some sort of structural decline. In that case, I'd rather exit early, potentially forgoing profits, to avoid the mass exodus that's probably going to follow once it's well established that the business is in a structural decline. So what Sleep and Zakaria really nailed was that the businesses that they chose were just so good that even if they grew at lower rates, they still maintained a reasonable evaluation because it was just common knowledge that these businesses had near impenetrable modes

and had high, high levels of customer loyalty. To execute Nomad's strategy on yourself, you must have active patience. I first learned of active patients from Ian Cassell, who wrote, The longer I invest, the more I realize you get one or two great opportunities every few years. The rest of the time is spent wondering if you'll ever get another great opportunity again and convincing yourself to own mediocre opportunities while you wait. Mediocrity is the price you pay for impatience. Nomad did an exceptional job avoiding impatience and practicing active patients.

If you want to learn to improve the skill of active patients, focus on three areas. So the first area is developing your temperament. This is done by managing your emotions and understanding your default reactions to things like risk, losses, and volatility. By journaling on your decision-making, you can build awareness to help anticipate emotional triggers and respond intelligently rather than relying on things like impulse. Second, find your principles. Clear principles provide a North Star for evaluating opportunities. Create things like a non-negotiate. a negotiable checklist of criteria that you just refuse to deviate from.

This helps filter incoming ideas to further help remove mediocrity. And third is just commit to your principles. Once you know temperament and principles, the hard work really comes in. So the hard work is just staying true to your rules and avoiding the temptation of good enough. You can try to reduce noise by doing things such as improving your investing environment and saying no firmly and often. Monich-Pabri has evolved as an investor very similar. to sleep in Zakaria, moving from cheap cigar butts to businesses that are a little higher up in quality. But I think it's important not to only focus on where investors like Pabri are today,

but also to learn lessons from their experiencing managing smaller sums of capital. So let's imagine we're in 2012. Monish Pabri finds himself in quiet reflection in the evening, scanning financial news using his usual mild skepticism. But a specific car company gives him a jolt. In Moneish's mind, the financial press is sharing fears of the business with headlines. lines such as Fiat teeters on the brink of bankruptcy. Monish gets interested as he checks the price of fiat and sees it trading at the very bottom of the bargain bin. But even though it's cheap, how can a business in just this bad of a financial situation be saved? His answer comes in the form of Sergio Marcione, the man who had saved the company in the first place. Monish begins

conducting his due diligence on the business and his skepticism slowly fades as he learns more and more. Fiat Chrysler has a market cap of $5 billion, but has annual sales of $140 billion, meaning the business was trading at less than 4% of its revenues. Additionally, the company was still turning a profit, and a very good one at that given its share price. It had $2.22 in EPS, and was trading at a price of around $4, meaning it had a P.E of around two times. Now, his eyes really began to widen. But P. P. Bray does some more digging. He knows not to fall for every business with low single-digit P multiples, because many of these businesses just don't deserve to be held by an intelligent investor.

Many of these businesses are on life support and aren't worth the hassle of trying to understand any deeper than that. But Fiat Chrysler has an additional asset that the market is overlooking, and that's Ferrari. At this time, Ferrari was a subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler. He decided to deduct 40% of the 2012 purchase price as a value derived from Ferrari, and this is how he arrives at a P.E. of only one.

From there, the rest is history. It's not publicly disclosed when he sold, but within two years, Fiat Chrysor was trading in the teens and low 20s, meaning there was a multi-begger from that $4 price point, which he reportedly started buying. So my main lesson here isn't actually that you have to find businesses that have a P.E. of one.

However, companies where you as an investor can just peer into the future often have valuations that simply do not make any sense. Whether that's a P.E. of 1, 5, 10, or 20, or whatever number you want to use, there are businesses out there that are just significantly mispriced. The key here is just in finding them. They won't appear on things like traditional screens. And like Pabri's research into Fiat,

additional adjustments to a business's financials are required in order to really get a clear picture of that business's intrinsic value. That's where the opportunity exists in understanding the value of a company offers that is being overlooked by the market. So when examining Fiat, it was apparent to Pabri that the market wasn't properly valuing the golden goose within Fiat, specifically in Ferrari.

Once a few simple adjustments were made, the core Fiat Chrysler business was even cheaper than the market thought. So how can investors use this to their advantage? You can look at a business as the sum of its parts, looking at each segment of a business individually, valuing each, and then adding it altogether to come up with a more accurate picture of value. This is a method that I've used in the past, but haven't always been very successful with.

Bosch Health was a business that appeared cheap on a sum of the parts, calculation. Still, poor management ultimately just completely derailed the entire hypothesis, and investors just headed for the exit in droves once they realized that management was unlikely to help the market recognize its full value. This experience left a very bad taste in my mouth regarding some of the parts investments. As I evolved, the model still made sense to me just in a different form. So Monish was looking for a business where the future cash flow of the company provided the margin of safety. Like I mentioned with the evolution of Ben Graham's, a margin of safety principle, this was a lesson that really helped me improve my thought process as an

investor. Instead of looking at a business as a sum of their assets, use the future earnings or cash flow to help you determine what a business is worth. That would give you a very firm floor on your downside and a nice upside if the business had additional growth levers that it could pull. In this light, if you look far enough into the future, really any business growing at a decent rate becomes a PE of one. If a business today is trading at a PE of 30 and growing EPS at 25%, then it becomes a PE of 1 in 15 years. Now, I don't trust myself to assume any business can grow at 10% for 15 years, let alone 25%. So instead of using the number 1, I like to see what I think the multiple will be just a few years down the road based on its current stock price.

When I look at a business like Topicus, I think it will grow its owner's earnings by about 30% a year from now. That means its future price to owners' earnings drops by about 23% in just a year's time. And if it continues to grow at that high rate for a few more years, the multiple will continue to drop precipitously. And that's my opportunity. Since the market won't allow that number to continue to fall, I make money simply by owning it and letting my conviction and their ability to compound their cash keep me as a shareholder. And as long as I have conviction that the future cash flow at a given rate, then I have my blow PE stock. So instead of looking at a business with a PE as just a single target, I view PE as more of a moving.

target. And this is how I can justify owning some of the higher price businesses in my portfolio that I believe can continue to grow at rates the market just doesn't expect them to grow at. This method works exceptionally well in some of the smaller businesses I own, which can grow their bottom lines at 30, 50%, or even more in a year. When a company can double its income in a year, the trailing PE shown to the market isn't an accurate reflection of what that business is likely going to be worth in a year's time. So let's say a business will double its profits in a year, but only has two quarters of profits. So its trailing 12-month PE may not even exist

since the earnings from the last two quarters don't actually cover the losses from the two preceding them. Therefore, many investors will examine these businesses just very briefly, conclude that it's not profitable, and move on. However, if you examine the business more closely and determine that it can sustain its momentum in sales and high profit margins, then profits are likely to continue growing into the future. And if future quarters are anything like the previous two,

then the business can grow very quickly. quickly. So let me just use a straightforward example here. So let's take a business we'll call it XYZ. It's grown its revenues at 50% for the last three years, but is only inflected positively in net income in the previous two quarters. In the last quarter, they had 1.25 million in profit. The business doesn't require any dilute of financing or debt. The company is valued at about $10 million today. So let's assume that they can continue selling while keeping cost controlled. and if we annualize the profits, we arrive at $5 million, and the business is trading at a forward PE of only two. Now, this happens more regularly than you think. You just have to be willing to go

and look for the opportunity. So finally here, we get to Charlie Munger, the person who may have had the most considerable impact on me, not only in investing, but in life. There are so many lessons I've learned from Charlie, but I've chosen one that I've started really leaning into more and more lately, which is to invest in and surround myself with people who offer win-win outcomes. So I believe this principle is most effective in personal relationships, which I'll discuss further shortly, but it also obviously applies in investing. And the business that Charlie invested in that best exemplifies this is Costco. So it's hard to find a party that just doesn't win from being part of the Costco ecosystem. The prime parties that come to mind are customers, suppliers,

employees, and investors. Let's start here with customers. So what do I get from shopping at Costco? I get things like the lowest prices that I'll find on essential items. I may have to buy larger quantities, but the pricing is just unmatched by most stores because they just can't match Costco's buying power. Costco has also developed deep trust with customers due to their exceptional return policy. I also occasionally enjoy the extra perks such as Costco cookies. Next up are suppliers. So suppliers gain added stability and reliability from working with Costco, which is a trusted

long-term partner in the market. If a business wants to grow and scale, then partnering with Costco is just a great opportunity, as it has the ability to put your product in front of many customers and help build your brand. Since Costco has been partnering with suppliers for such a long time, they're also very, very reliable. Now, when we look at employees, employees at Costco are very well taken care of. Since Costco can buy their product for cheaper, it allows it to spend more money elsewhere, such as on its employees. This enables them to pay above average wages and offer great benefits extending them to part-time workers as well. They also do a great job of promoting from within. As a result, they have lower turnover rates compared to their competitors and have

built a very solid reputation among employees. Lastly, we have investors. This is a pretty easy one. Since Costco's inception has a private business in 1985, the stock has returned nearly 3,800% to shareholders, which is about a 20% kegger. And the returns just keep on coming. So if you look at the last five years, its kegger has been 25%. The business is resilient through economic cycles and pays a steady and growing dividend. They also have growth opportunities as they expand their store network. So as you can see, Costco is one of those rare businesses that truly creates win-win outcomes across the board. That's why Charlie loved it, because it's not just profitable, it's fair, durable, and trusted by nearly everyone involved.

But here's the thing. While I admire this dynamic in business, I've actually found that principle is even more powerful in life. Businesses may come and go, but the quality of your relationships determines the quality of your life. And just like Costco, the best relationships that I've had are the ones that everyone walks away better off. All my best relationships are with people that I can hopefully, you know, try to provide as much value as possible to. But there's no way I can offer the right amount of value to everyone, which is why I think you can only maintain a very limited number of very high quality relationships. However, the key is to ensure that the relationships you do have are mutually

beneficial. So what exactly constitutes a win-win relationship? I think it's reciprocity that multiplies. Whenever I try to give value, I often find that I receive it back multiple times over. A hidden benefit of win-win relationships is just the exposure to serendipity. When you have people in your life who want to provide you with value, they often surround themselves with people looking to do the exact same thing. And this allows you to tap into their network, further enhancing the power of win-win relationships. Then, most importantly, I derive most joy from relationships where I'm just excited to be around that person rather than dreading it. Win-win relationships must be nurtured.

One thing I've noticed that I've gotten older and taken on more and more family responsibilities is that maintaining relationships is a lot more difficult than when I had fewer responsibilities. Since I have a lot less time, I'd rather eliminate toxic people from my life as my time is precious. Now, by focusing my time and effort on people that really bring me joy, I build a self-reinforcing cycle of support, generosity, and opportunity. When it came in toxic people, Charlie Munger once said, The great lesson of life is to get them the hell out of your life and do it fast. And I think that's very key.

I've come to learn that people just tend not to change their mindsets. If people are stuck in an entitlement or scarcity mindset, it's very doubtful that I, or anybody else for that matter, will change their minds on that. So toxic people have a way of offering win-lose relationships where you put put in value and you receive none in return. The simple removal of these relationships is just a massive boost to the quality of your life. Ultimately, a life curated around these win-win relationships is just one that's filled with higher-quality interactions, deeper fulfillment, and significantly reduced exposure to negativity.

And that, to me, is the essence of the win-win principle. Invest deeply in people and relationships where value flows both ways and be quick to cut out all the ones that don't. in investing that might look like Costco. In life, it looks like surrounding yourself with people rooted in trust, generosity, and abundance. In both cases, the rewards compound over time, not only in terms of wealth, but also in terms of happiness and meaning. That's all I have for you today. Want to keep the conversation going?

Follow me on Twitter at a rational MRKTS or connect with me on LinkedIn to search for Kyle Grief. I'm always open to feedback, so feel free to share how I can make this podcast even better for you. Thanks for listening and see you next time. Thank you for listening to TIP. Make sure to follow We Study Billionaires on your favorite podcast app and never miss out on episodes. To access our show notes, transcripts or courses, go to theinvestorspodcast.com. This show is for entertainment purposes only, before making any decision consult a professional. This show is copyrighted by the Investors Podcast Network.

Written permission must be granted before syndication or rebroadcasting. Thank you.