dlr1493

I was recently listening to some Berkshire Hathaway shareholder Q&As, and Munger and Buffett were asked which company they think has the strongest moat or brand. Unsurprisingly, Coca-Cola came up. I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and honestly, I can’t think of a brand with a stronger moat. It’s literally ingrained in popular culture — everywhere you look. What makes it so remarkable is that it’s a physical product that engages your senses: you can taste it, smell it, etc. It’s synonymous with positive memories and moments, and it’s enjoyed by people across every income level, all over the world. As a product, it’s fully mature — there’s no real way to improve it, nor is there need (obviously adapt to health trends etc but nothing revolutionary). I genuinely can’t think of a stronger, more enduring brand. My friend and I were trying to think of other companies with similar characteristics to Coke. Obviously, the usual suspects came up — iPhone/Apple, Google Search, etc. — all very obvious examples. But to my mind, nothing feels quite as strong as Coke for the reasons I mentioned. We were also thinking about other companies or products that have a similar emotional appeal — Disney came up as an interesting example. I’m curious what others think: which companies or products do you see as deeply emotionally resonant for consumers? In today’s digital world, most products that can truly capture people’s emotions—things you physically experience—already exist and are deeply embedded in culture. New hits are mostly digital, but they struggle to create that lasting emotional attachment. A phone has to constantly compete; Coke doesn’t. Can anything like Coke ever be created again? Or was that kind of cultural phenomenon a once-in-a-generation thing? At the same time, I know that moats don’t have to be about consumer brands. A company can have a really deep moat for entirely different reasons. Which companies do you consider to have strongest moats and for what reasons?

Thanks! Well I have a month off soon and I'm travelling through December, so I have an opportune time to listen. I can get the audio book no problem but was wondering if it would be better to hold off and wait for the physical version. I have listened to some finance books before and find myslef rewinding a lot or needing to see charts. Basically asking if this is like that or would it be just as enjoyable to listen?

Hi everyone! Excited to read this. I had it on preordered on Amazon but cancelled as it won't arrive to me in time before I travel! However, I have seen it on Audible. From those that have read, am I best waiting to get my hands on a physical copy or do you think it'll still be good audio format? I live in UAE and can't find any physical copies here!

Hi everyone! Excited to read this. I had it on preordered on Amazon but cancelled as it won't arrive to me in time before I travel! However, I have seen it on Audible. From those that have read, am I best waiting to get my hands on a physical copy or do you think it'll still be good audio format? I live in UAE and can't find any physical copies here!

@Spekulatius I think it depends on what your career is. If you want to be a world class surgeon, then high specialization is obviously necessary and vital. It is a discreet activity and a tumor isn't worried about incentives or human psychology! But with something more broad like 'investing' which itself is influenced by many factors, then you can't really be successful without understanding the different factors that influence it. As a rule of thumb, the more you start adding in different factors that influence the outcome, especially with human behaviour playing a role, then the more value there is from having a broader understanding of topics. Furthermore, Munger often talks about the 'man with a hammer' error. There's obviously times when someone is trying to apply their specialisation to a context where it doesn't apply. Therefore, specialization Vs multidiscipline depends on the context and @Rainier's spectrum view is a good way to think about it. But I'd argue most areas aren't that discreet and having a multidisciplined approach is more valuable. Moreover, I don't think you need to have incredible depth in the subject to derive value from it. Munger actually says this too when he talks about 90% of the heavy lifting is done from the more basic elements of an idea, or words to that effect. For instance, Munger's knowledge of evolutionary biology will not be as advanced as Richard Dawkins, but it's sufficient enough to grasp the key concepts. This then adds value to his mental models which he can apply to other endeavors, such as investing. Personally, I think the concept of 'multidisciplines' has really helped my mindset. I agree with @Rainier that life is more fun this way. I now find that I am more open minded and interested in a wider range of topics because I can make connections and apply it to other topics where it might be helpful. I loved how you brought up incentives @Rainier. This is something that I probably always knew, and many people probably are aware of it, but I vastly underestimated their power! Anecdotally, this recently helped me out! A few months ago I visited the dentist for the first time in a while and was told I grind my teeth in the night and needed expensive Invisalign to address the problem. Sincerely, she convincingly demonstrated how this will lead me to grind my teeth down over time. However, my skepticism raised the bullshit detector. Why had my work collogues who recommended her had similar diagnoses? Why didn't she do X-Ray as a matter of protocol (this was my first time in years)? Something didn't sit right. Low and behold, I discovered she has a partnership with Invisalign and is thus incentivized to push their products. I went for a second opinion who basically confirmed this was bullshit and concurred there was nothing wrong. Without Munger being fresh in my mind, I'd have likely paid up thousands of $ for something I didn't need, trusting the professional! (Another colleague that saw her unbeknownst to me now has Invisalign - apparently he also grinds his teeth!) Here's to hoping mine don't fall out! Another point I would make @Spekulatius is that while I'd agree that certain degrees will lead to better economic outcomes than an art degree, that doesn't necessarily mean studying some of the arts is fruitless. For instance, Munger studied law which likely led to a better outcome than if he had studied psychology. But his understanding of psychology probably had just as much, possibly more, of an impact on his success in business than his law knowledge did.

After listening to interviews of Munger and reading 'Poor Charlie's Almanack', I became pretty fascinated by the benefits of 'multidisciplinarian' thinking. I also read a book called 'Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World' whose author, David Epstein, also advocates this idea. When I was driving home yesterday, I listened to an interesting discussion between Howard Marks and a chess grand champion who were discussing the parallels between chess and investing. Here's a link if anyone is interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igJTeeg6Ttw This put this idea back in my head and made me curious to put a few questions out to the community: 1) Has anyone got a story or anecdote of when knowledge in a different discipline helped them in another? (The more seemingly disconnected the more interesting to me!) 2) What topics or books have taught you lessons that you can apply to investing (or life generally!)?

Absolute folly. What innings are we in here? How do people see anticipate this going?

Hi everyone, newbie here... I have just finished reading 'American Kingpin' by Nick Bilton- really enjoyed it and was an exciting read. For those of you that aren't aware, it follows Ross Ulbricht, who was the creator of an online marketplace called 'The Silk Road' which mainly sold an array of drugs online, but also sold other illegal products. It touches on his life and belief system, then takes you through the story of the website's genesis and development and the events leading to his capture. Ross was a libertarian who justified his actions by stating it wasn't the government's job to decide what people did with their own bodies. He despised government intervention in people's life. After finishing, I naturally googled the case a little more and learnt that Mr President himself has recently granted Ross a pardon and he is a freeman again. (I'm British so I might be behind the times with regards to US happenings!) There's a few points I want to make: 1) I think there is an interesting link to business and psychology - Ross was clearly highly intelligent. But I find it fascinating how one dogmatic belief 'Everyone has the right to do what they want with their bodies and I am merely facilitating it by allowing free choice' would override everything. The devastating impact of drugs like heroin (both personal and societal) would brazenly be ignored by Ross, because his belief system was so black and white and all-encompassing. He knew better. I couldn't help think of Charlie Munger when I read this and how clever people can have huge gaps in their way of thinking. It incredible to me how someone who had a degree in physics and built a $1.2billion dollar empire would make arguments like 'Alcohol kills more people annually than heroin, why don't we make that illegal?' and that nonsense would be the depth of his thought on such matters before ironically imposing his libertarian views on society. 2) Lack of integrity - We live in a world where Donald Trump is imposing sanctions on countries citing reasons like not doing enough to stop fentanyl entering US. He also seems proactive in deporting people involved in drugs. Then, simultaneously he pardons the one man who arguably did the most for illegal drug trafficking into the US in history! It made me a bit angry. Not that Ross is free as such, (people might have their own views on if he has served his time or the severity of his crimes) but just the lack of morality. In my view it shows how Trump is completely transactional. His view on anything lacks any consistency and is formed on 'How can I benefit from this?' rather than any morals. Furthermore, I watched a video of Ross thanking Mr Trump on his decision. Ross Ulbricht, the libertarian who believes in lack of government intervention, thanks US president for intervening. 3) Madness of crowds - Finally, it seems to me, albeit anecdotally, there is huge sympathy for Ross. He wasn't actually dealing drugs himself after all. (Just taking commissions and profiteering on drug sales is evidently different...) Maybe I am the idiot? Maybe I am narrow minded? But, again I think there's an investing lesson here on group think and human psychology. I wonder if people would have the same sympathy if this was a black kid from a underprivileged area who was facilitating sales of firearms? I doubt it. Anyway, I enjoyed the story. Thought it had some relevant lessons. Would love to hear people's thoughts...