nafregnum

I've been working my way through Chris Bloomstran's yearly letter -- he said something on twitter about it being a little crazy that the market cap of Berkshire at 630B is basically the same as Tesla and also Bitcoin, and it got me interested to learn more about how he thinks. The current Semper Augustus letter is 114 pages long and I'm almost finished -- I like his writing style, and it feels like at least half of the whole letter is dedicated to looking deeply at Berkshire (it's like a 31% position in his 260M portfolio according to 13Fs) -- The thing I like most is to see Warren buying back shares a lot more than in previous years. Chris gives the full history of previous share buybacks and other times when Warren used shares instead of cash because he saw the shares as "worth more" (overvalued vs cash) -- the GOAT (greatest of all time, WEB) successfully used the right tool for acquisitions in almost all cases, and only bought back shares when it was most rational to do so -- the fact that GOAT is buying back shares now makes me want to sell out of everything I hold which I believe to be "fully valued" or "overvalued" and put that all into BRK.B shares and go back to my usual inactivity. The fact that he's repurchasing shares currently/recently is a big green light. He at least makes an argument that the stuff selling at the highest Price/Sales multiples have a really hard time outperforming in the following 20 years (pages 53 to 56 or so if I remember) https://www.semperaugustus.com/clientletter

The wazoo commercial still makes me laugh! I never forgot that one. I've been reading Chris Bloomstran's yearly letter, and he makes some data-backed arguments that we're pretty much in year 2000 territory again. Looking at TSLA valuation, and looking at how many companies are being sold at more than 30x sales, and how well those have done for people in the past, it's sobering. Combine that with Michael Burry's tweet that he believes we're in the largest speculative bubble of all time, in all asset classes, by two orders of magnitude. It seems like a bubble to me. They let TSLA into the S&P 500 and it's one of the biggest components of the S&P now, hugely overvalued as it is. https://www.semperaugustus.com/clientletter https://static.fmgsuite.com/media/documents/2bde00e4-7037-4c39-beb8-9946b2b2dce3.pdf ( If you only read a couple pages, go for 50 to 52 about Tesla's valuation, or 53 to 56 about some research he did comparing outcomes for stocks trading at >10x, >20x, >30x sales about 20 years ago and how they've done since. Spoiler: buying high is always a bad strategy )

Interesting times. I'm having fun just daydreaming about this. I'm probably way off the mark, but it's still a fun combination: 1. Berkshire has a mountain of cash. 2. First level thinking: Holding cash going into inflationary period is a big scary no no. Berkshire's big cash position perversely contributes to negative sentiment. In a time when the Schiller P/E is 37.47 and S&P P/E is 44.88, we see BRK.A at a much lower P/E (yahoo finance says 6.30, how is that right?? Another site says 28 ...) 3. If Buffett buys a whole bunch of stocks now, and then inflation causes interest rates to rise then he loses a lot of the value of the cash he spent on stocks since the higher interest rates will make the price of those stocks go down. First rule: don't lose money. 4. Buffett has a special relationship with his loyal shareholders. Wants to reward them, but not with dividends because that's not tax efficient for long term shareholders. 5. Warren Buffett Filing Indicates Berkshire Hathaway Bought Back $6 Billion of Stock in 2nd Quarter 6. Plowing some cash into buybacks rewards his long term shareholders: They get bigger pieces of all those great businesses which will succeed during inflation. Float shrinks at the same time profit numbers (due to inflation) will be larger. Who knows: Maybe shrinking the cash mountain will eventually solve the sentiment problem of #2 above, but by the time those First Level Thinkers get excited about lower-cash Berkshire, earnings per share will be much higher due to reductions in shares outstanding? As I said, I could be way off -- please punch holes in this and help me get some more Elementary Worldly Wisdom

https://twitter.com/ChrisBloomstran/status/1407440728570183680 Interesting thought I found on dataroma.com commentary tab, from a guy I don't know, Chris Bloomstran. The replies he got on twitter made me laugh a bit, and reminded me of the recent Michael Burry quote: "People always ask me what is going on in the markets," the investor tweeted. "It is simple. Greatest Speculative Bubble of All Time in All Things. By two orders of magnitude. #FlyingPigs360." -- https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/big-short-michael-burry-twitter-return-biggest-market-bubble-ever-2021-6-1030524823 ---START OF TWEET--- Mr. Market values $BRK.A $TSLA and #Bitcoin at nearly identical $630B market values. One is up 20% YTD, earns $45B on $250B of sales & $450B of equity. One is down 12%, earns $1B (maybe) on $36B of sales & $24B of equity. One is up 12% and will never produce sales or earnings. Mr. Market is rational at times and manic or depressive at others. What’s his state of mind now? Investors should have an idea of expected return from holding each of these for the next decade. Speculators require a greater fool. Does a $630B valuation embed a margin of safety? Food for thought: Berkshire COULD pay its cash as a dividend, turning a 10% ROE to a 14.5%. It COULD give 10% (or more) shares to insiders. It COULD use its cash to buy back shares. The stock would at least double. How many CEOs would do these things? How many already have? ---END OF TWEET--- I also noticed a news story about Berkshire having bought back a chunk of shares recently. I remember when Allan Mecham made a killing by loading up on Berkshire when he knew its share price was at the point where Warren would be buying back -- buying BRK.B shares when Warren Buffett is buying shares back seems like such a no-brainer compared to buying Tesla or Bitcoin right now. I do not see an "almost guaranteed floor" underneath either of those. Warren Buffett Filing Indicates Berkshire Hathaway Bought Back $6 Billion of Stock in 2nd Quarter

This was a fun interview to watch for me so I wanted to share it: An impassioned defense for Value Investing philosophy in the first few minutes. Preach it brother Bruce! Bruce gets up to the lectern and yells "Hear! Oh hear! The word of Value!" I also enjoyed the brief history of value investing from Graham & Dodd up to today. He said he thought USD inflation would be brutal. Had a few interesting big picture predictions, one was that China will have a very hard time transitioning quickly from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. Sometimes predictions so huge make me wonder if it's really possible to foresee such things ( if Bruce is right, and the leadership in China became convinced of this economic brick wall, couldn't they now take preventative measures or make other maneuvers to soften the blow? ) He also said that there's no chance Tesla will be the dominant car manufacturer in 20 years. But he did say he wouldn't dare short them and he'd be too afraid to own the stock. "If I were to put the family fortune into TSLA, I would not be a comfortable dude." [ about China, not sure if he's right ] He says at one point that many of China's brightest come to study in the US and then stay in the US, but I think that might be outdated information going forward. I think I recently read an Economist article about more and more foreign students in the US deciding to go back to their home country. https://www.economist.com/special-report/2018/05/17/what-happens-when-chinese-students-abroad-return-home He might have outdated info about the amount of foreign university students in the US who are deciding now to go back to their home countries instead of staying. Fred Liu writes about "Gen-1 Entrepreneurs" in developing nations in his most recent quarter letter: http://www.haydencapital.com/wp-content/uploads/Hayden-Capital-Quarterly-Letter-2021-Q1.pdf

This joke will work at some point in the near future: Q: "How do you make a small fortune in Dogecoin?" A: "Well, you start by investing a large fortune."

I don't invest in his funds, but I still feel grateful that Pabrai puts himself out there, because it benefited me personally: I read The Dhando Investor and The Education of a Value Investor (Guy Spier) back in 2014 and it reawakened my dormant investing hobby. my original Buffett + Munger fanboy status grew out of reading The Intelligent Investor in 2004, but my first attempts at picking stocks weren't so hot. The most useful piece of advice I've heard from Pabrai was this: Just be patient. Fidelity did some study and figured out the most successful brokerage accounts were just the accounts of dead people and others who had forgotten their account and left it alone for many years. Letting my winners run for years beyond my impulse to sell has made a huge difference in my results. I know, this advice also comes from Munger and Buffett too, but I heard the Fidelity anecdote from Pabrai during one of these YouTube style videos.

Just sold half of my best performing position ever. (For the curious, it was ENPH bought in 2017, idea from Dan Loeb 13F) So, how do you go about deciding when it's right to sell? Any online tools or strategies that have worked well for you? Do you watch volume figures to help decide? [ If interested in my own small process, this was my internal debate, and how I decided to sell ] Arguments for holding: Part of me thinks it could keep going up for a lot longer during the upcoming Biden years, so I ought to let this winner just keep running. Along these lines, another temptation to hold comes from Fidelity research that the best performing accounts were from people who forgot about their accounts or were dead so the accounts sat idle for years. https://twocents.lifehacker.com/the-best-investors-literally-forget-about-their-portfol-1782581085 Arguments for selling: I had to fight back these thoughts with Buffettisms like "Buy from pessimists, Sell to optimists" and the decision became final when I checked insider buys/sells and saw that it's all sell for the last few years (the only buys were stock option strike prices of 18 instead of at-the-time prices in 60s) https://www.dataroma.com/m/ins/ins.php?t=y&&sym=ENPH&o=fd&d=d and

I hope you got to see some of it, what did you end up doing? I took my wife and kids up to Menan, Idaho along with a big group of neighbor friends (we drove around 4 hours to get there) Camped out Sunday night, then played sun / moon / eclipse songs all morning while we waited. I took a few videos: one with a DJI drone to see the 360 degree sunset, and one from a small camcorder on a tripod. When C2 hit and there was a big black disc where the sun had been... my brain blew a fuse, and all I could do was scream like I was at a cosmic rock concert. I saw the 2012 annular eclipse in Saint George, Utah, but it was nothing compared to a total.

You'll like this video I think: It was taken with a racing drone. Looks like it'd be super fun to wear VR goggles to guide it...

https://www.thefelderreport.com/2017/06/06/podcast-steven-bregman-on-the-greatest-bubble-ever-passive-etf-investing/ I listened to this one and liked these ideas: 1. A bubble is created any time lots of people are buying something without concern for the underlying value. Seems like what's happening when droves of people put their retirement savings plan on S&P 500 ETF autopilot. 2. Interesting metaphor: The tech bubble of 1999 was like being in a canoe on the ocean and a single big wave hits. The wave (the high part) was just the tech sector, a lot of the "old economy" stocks weren't overvalued. The current ETF bubble is like being on a canoe and the whole surface of the ocean raises up a few feet. It's harder to notice, but the damage of a whole ocean of water that is 2 feet higher than normal could be immense. 3. Taking out a couple of the FANG stocks, the S&P returns have been negative recently. A lot of the huge consumer goods companies aren't really "growing" faster than population growth now... they've reached their market saturations for the most part, but they're being priced with P/Es in the 20s. Interested in what you folks make of this. I'm 50% cash currently (have been for a couple months now)

I just listened to the audiobook version of Michael Lewis' book "The Undoing Project" about Daniel Kahneman's life and work with Amos Tversky -- I'd highly recommend it. Another great book on decision making is "How We Decide" by Jonah Lehrer. He wrote each chapter around a compelling story, and that made the book very memorable. I can still tell a few of those stories in detail and it's been a few years...

You might like www.dividendgeek.com -- it's a free signup, and when logged in you can see a page called "Check for undervalued stocks" -- he has a lot of useful information about each company's dividend, and sorts a list of companies in each sector based on how under/over valued the current stock price is (I think he is just using a DCF to establish a 'fair value', which is simplistic sure, but it's nice to just be able to look at a list and see who the 'cheap' ones are...) As for defeating anchoring though... I wish I knew how. :) I like to tell myself that just knowing about anchoring bias is a partial defense, but perhaps that's just its own kind of fallacy (Call it "Motel 6 fallacy" maybe -- I read some books about anchoring bias, so I feel smart now, but in all likelihood I'll probably keep on anchoring)

On the moral duty to investigate things before believing them, and to expose even the beliefs we want to hold onto to the same scrutiny: http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Clifford_ethics.pdf An impressive essay from back in the 1870s by a mathematician. First two paragraphs are great: A shipowner was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and not overwell built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind, and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and refitted, even though this should put him to great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales. What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts. And although in the end he may have felt so sure about it that he could not think otherwise, yet inasmuch as he had knowingly and willingly worked himself into that frame of mind, he must be held responsible for it

Wow, this really was click-worthy! I didn't know about Rocket Financial. What other online tools do you guys like to use? (I like dataroma.com, and gurufocus.com)

I connected with that book a few years back because I was working with a CEO who was a terrible business manager, yet because the business was growing it made him look wonderful to the PE firms who were falling over themselves to buy the company. That's the "Halo Effect" basically: Even a terrible manager looks great to outsiders while a business is outperforming. Journalists can't do anything other than tell stories that would seem to explain the performance of the business, whether good or bad, and they typically look to build a story about management, ignoring many other factors. Investing is such an interesting challenge because it's so much like the poison wine guessing game in The Princess Bride. I could sit and play devil's advocate against myself back and forth all day, and ultimately I could choose wrong. I'd modify that slightly: "There's no such thing as "the story" -- there are only "stories" ... So it's dangerous to look at just one 'story' when investing. You might read a few glowing stories from Bloomberg writers, or Fortune magazine, but what story would the employees at the bottom rungs tell about management? For that, I try to go to glassdoor.com or linkedin.com to do some digging. Scuttlebutt information like Phil Fisher would try to collect still has plenty of value (in my opinion) The numbers themselves tell "a story" and I think it's dangerous to only trust that story. For example, if you're not concerned whether the management has integrity or not, then you might certainly fall for a good looking "story" from the numbers (as will the computers.) Buffett: If management is corrupt you better hope they're also stupid and lazy! This guy does a better job of reviewing the Good to Great kind of storytelling ... I agree with him that they're still worth reading, but if you read them and know about our weakness for good stories, you can approach those books of stories with a better chance of sifting the valuable insights: http://www.tomorrowtodayglobal.com/2011/12/09/good-to-great-to-gone-2/ Artificial Intelligence can beat the best humans at games like Chess, Jeopardy, and Go. They're going to surpass human ability in many other cognitive tasks. They're a lot faster to act on data than humans, and they don't make errors in judgement because they skipped breakfast or stayed up too late watching Westworld the night before... But on the day of the flash crash a couple years back, as I remember it, humans were buying the dips and the algos were doing the selling. Granted, those were just dumb "follow the herd" algos, or sell stops being blown out. The algos will improve and evolve as long as they provide an edge for their masters. But whether with computers or human brains it'll still be an "arms race" just like it is now. Find something that works extremely well, and it'll get copied before long and that 'magic trick' will stop working. What worked in Ben Graham's day doesn't work so well now... I think at its best, knowing about Narrative Fallacy is just one piece of armor: the codpiece maybe. Wouldn't want to go into battle wearing only a codpiece, but wouldn't want to go without it either. :o I really loved the first few pages (haven't finished it) of the Chinese-to-English translation that CoBF member Graham Rhodes made: "Moreover, since one of the ultimate goals of this class is to train the future leaders of China’s asset management industry, I would like before you enter the industry to keep in mind two unbreakable, bottom line moral requirements: "First, make the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom your moral responsibility. You must consciously reject any ass-backwards theories. Once you enter the profession, you will quickly realise that almost all theories are of this kind. If you don’t think about this closely, you will soon confuse your interests with the client’s. This is just human nature; no one can avoid it. Because this profession is complicated, it is full of specious points of view. Even though there are many judgements, it is not an exact science. So I really hope that any young people who are wholeheartedly trying to enter the profession can let this kind of moral bottom line take root; you must make the continuous pursuit of knowledge, truth and wisdom your moral responsibility. As an informed practitioner, don’t knowingly trot out those theories which are good for you but not your client. Don’t let yourself be confused by specious theories. This is very, very important." I really like that bit of his presentation -- it sounds a lot like how Charlie Mungers says it: It is our job to become as rational as we can in our lifetimes. To grind as much ignorance out of our systems as we can. Or as he paraphrases Samuel Johnson: "The ethical rule is from Samuel Johnson who believed that maintenance of easily removable ignorance by a responsible office holder was treacherous malfeasance in meeting moral obligation." Along those kinds of lines, I can't recommend highly enough the YouTube lectures by Robert Sapolsky on Human Behavioral Biology -- the introductory lecture has an amazing set of examples on just how wrong geniuses have gotten things in the past by looking at the world through just one lens: (cued up mostly to within 5 minutes of the powerful argument against categorical thinking)

Love it! Reminds me of the "Story of the Mexican Fisherman" https://bemorewithless.com/the-story-of-the-mexican-fisherman/ Nutshell version: While on vacation, an investment banker living a workaholic life chats with a fisherman, recommending to the fisherman a life of hard work and entrepreneurship to build a fishing business empire. At each step, fisherman asks "And then what?" ... answer to last "Then what?" question is: Then you can retire, and live the life you're essentially living right now (taking it easy, a little fishing, a daily siesta, hanging out with friends at night)

(This went long, I hope you don't see it as any kind of attack, I am in agreement throughout but trying to make the case that the high skill / low skill operators are divided by whether they can graciously navigate the skill vs luck question.) Agree 100% "The harder I practice, the luckier I get" (a famous golfer from decades past) I think there's a secret key in that quote: Work as if it all depends on you. Then when you're success arrives in the mail, when you talk about it to others, you have to acknowledge role of luck in your achievement. It's an unspoken rule, and a trap that requires some EQ (emotional skill) to avoid. If you just saved a bunch of orphan babies from a burning building, and a news reporter asks if you think you're a hero, here are your choices: 1. Say "Yes" and you'll look small in the eyes of others. 2. Say "No, I just did what you would've done in the same situation" and you look like the real hero. That happened to me. And it did hurt. (Story below.) But... "To be wronged is nothing, unless you continue to remember it." Your kids are lucky to have a dad who encourages them to work hard and learn everything they can. It can safely be said that having good parents wasn't a product of their own skill. Later on when the major awards of life are handed out, and they're giving their acceptance speeches, you'll be honored if they graciously admit that they were lucky to have had you and your wife for parents to encourage and prod them toward their success. You'll feel quite differently if they stand at that podium with a narcissistic attitude that they achieved it all by themselves through their own hard work, or worse yet through their skills at manipulating others with shrewd negotiating skills <cough:Trump> I love how Charlie Munger says envy is the worst of the "deadly sins", because it doesn't even give you any fun or pleasure. True, some people exist who look on success and say "They got lucky" ... I helped build a startup on a philosophy of making our customer support a mind-blowing positive experience, trying to be like Zappos. The business grew by leaps and bounds. I felt sure our success was due to the word of mouth advertising generated by all the good karma. Through a mutual friend, I heard that one of my peers at a previous job had heard of our success and dismissed it as "luck" ... even though we weren't close friends, it really hurt to hear that someone thought my good fortune was just luck. (*Even if my success _was_ all luck, it makes that guy a little bit smaller to be dismissive instead of encouraging.*) Sometimes it's a lazy person's copout to blame bad luck. But sometimes the bad luck is real. You can eat lots of greens, beans, onions, mushrooms, and sprouts to reduce your cancer risks, but you still might get cancer. Looking at another person and trying to judge whether their success or failure is due to skill or luck is a waste of time that could be better spent thinking of an encouraging compliment instead. Far better (and more socially skillful) to say "Look at your awesome skills" when praising another person for a success, and to say "I had some great lucky breaks" when talking about your own successes. Good and bad things happen to us every day, and some of those things are random and unpredictable. One person or group or nation's good fortune can never be accurately explained as "all luck" or "all skill" It's just a feature of our psychology as humans to want clean little stories that explain good or bad outcomes ... it's the narrative fallacy working against us when we think that reality can be fit into nice little stories. Our brains are wired for hearing and telling stories, which helps explain why "Good to Great" has 2100+ reviews on Amazon, while "The Halo Effect: . . . and 8 other business delusions that deceive managers" has 120 reviews. (The Halo Effect is a book that debunks a lot of the other business books that purport to distill business success down to a bunch of inspiring stories. It's more scientific, but harder to read or listen to because it hurts all those cute stories we want to believe.) On Narrative Fallacy: https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2016/04/narrative-fallacy/ Favorite quote about Narrative Fallacy comes from Yuval Noah Harari, in this interview: https://overcast.fm/+BSCDk9Xmk/57:10 "Homo Sapiens is a story telling animal. We think in stories. We expect reality to be a story. And we expect the meaning of life also to be a story. When people ask what is the meaning of life, they almost always expect the answer to come in a story. Some huge cosmic drama, with a beginning, middle, end, heroes, etc... also a role for me to play in the drama, in the big story... And I think the problem is: reality doesn't come in the shape of a story. I think as a kind of rule of thumb: If the meaning of life that you think you have found is in the shape of a story it is wrong: it's a human invention."

On the topic of skill and luck: It's a valuable social skill for a successful person to be able to acknowledge the role of luck in their life. I think it's one of the social graces any conspicuously successful person ought to have, and a person who can't do it freely is limiting his or herself in the eyes of others. Buffett does it when he says he was lucky to have come out of the right womb, or won the genetic lottery, or just happened to be born with an aptitude for a skill (capital allocation) into just the right time and place (US markets 1950s onward) where that skill was highly rewarded. Howard Marks does it too, he mentions the luck behind his transition into junk bond analysis at just the right time. When they acknowledge the role of luck, they're not saying "it was _all_ luck" and they're not saying "I have zero skill" ... I think by acknowledging the role of luck, they come off as more likable people... "A man all wrapped up in himself makes a small package." (I really liked that quote as a teen) I love a bit in "Fooled by Randomness" where Nassim Taleb says a Janitor might get lucky and win the lottery and end up with $1M dollars. And a dentist might do the same over the course of his or her career. But if you re-roll the dice of life 60 times for each of those two people, the Janitor will only become the lottery millionaire in 1 of those lifetimes, but the dentist will likely get there in maybe 30 of the re-rolls. This quote sums it up nicely, I think: “The more I practice, the luckier I get...” http://stelfox.ie/practice-luck/ Better to succeed and acknowledge luck (even if you think it was _more_ your doing) than to succeed and let others think it went to your head. Nobody is an independent success, and there's no such thing as a fully self-made man. I once heard someone demonstrate this by saying: "You probably took a shower this morning. Did you make the water come out of the pipes by the power of your own will?" "Victory has a thousand fathers and failure is an orphan." When you do succeed, I think in addition to acknowledging luck, you get bonus points for acknowledging the role of the other 999 fathers of the happy success.

Thanks - heaviest book I ever bought on Amazon!

This one? https://www.amazon.com/Permanent-Value-Warren-Buffett-Worldwide/dp/1681840723/ref=la_B001H6IVWU_1_1

I admit I hold Howard Marks up on a pedestal. Buffett has high praise for his memos. I think his book "The Most Important Thing" is fantastic (it's mostly a compilation of his memos) This quote is just restating the idea of value investing in different terms. I saw a YouTube video where I remember he said even a completely burned out and ruined car can be a good buy if the price is far lower than its value as scrap metal. He's restating the Graham/Buffett way of putting it: "Pick up $1 bills for $0.70." My favorite Marks quotes (not in the video) are: "Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted." "What the wise man does in the beginning, the fool does in the end." (about the end of bull/bear markets)

For anyone on the fence about MOI, I believe they have a full refund policy if not happy. Might be good idea to buy in and evaluate... (I am a subscriber for the last two years and it's paid for itself in terms of idea generation.)

I admit this sounds crazy, but could he have done it by trading in and out of some of his stocks on a daily / weekly basis? What if what appears in the 13F report is just the net buys or sells? (since I never see 13F data showing both buys and sells of a stock in a quarter)

Last week I discovered a real gem among podcasts: Masters in Business with Barry Ritholtz. He has these awesome discussions with smart folks in investing -- here are some favorites below. If you listen to it, do you have any favorite discussions? Do any of you have other favorite podcasts on investing? Simon Lack https://overcast.fm/+F21xLUyPM Michael Lewis talks @ The Undoing Project and other books https://overcast.fm/+F21xVe6Xg Howard Marks https://overcast.fm/+F21yO_yZY Aswath Damodaran https://overcast.fm/+F21w8ksQE Daniel Kanneman https://overcast.fm/+F21xO4quY Roger Lowenstein https://overcast.fm/+F21wYXI88 Ken Fisher https://overcast.fm/+F21wzBElM Jason Zweig https://overcast.fm/+F21yMkhb4 Yuval Noah Harari https://overcast.fm/+F21xqUoGM