premfan

Thanks for sharing this data. To use this data in a business context. This company( team) has a lot of assets that aren't earning a return. A activist would salivate to take control of this company and increase the earning power of the business. So this company (team) is a cigar butt. Time is its enemy.

I respect that. Chamath palihapitiya owner of the golden state warriors was a early facebook executive that helped lead a team when he arrived to 30ish million users to 750 million when he left. He started a partnership and mentions Berkshire as a model. I study winners. I study the local successful real estate investor not the high school janitor that quotes elon, seth, warren, and Bezos ( nothing wrong with janitor work just using this example in a business context).

You're rereading a letter from a GM that helped produce the worst three year record in nba history ( fact check me on this). Just because he mentioned value investors! Wow maybe a case study of fastenals and balchem's history would be a better allocation of time.

Admiring greats like warren and seth is fine. But execution matters. Results matter. Even progress matters. No talent and admiring the greats gets you nothing. Your record matters. I see a ton of people quoting greats ( marketing) and producing no results. Get results. Stop marketing and produce a product ( track record).

+1

Why? I posted a few months ago on Craigslist looking for a videographer in Toronto, I received a LOT of responses, was your son one of them?. All hungry film makers looking for work. Most had terrible pitches, bad portfolios and nothing to show. A few had really nice portfolios, it would have been easy to select one. We ended up going with someone who came recommended from the hotel we're working with. But regardless, these guys were out hustling trying to find work. I have a friend who's a filmmaker in Pittsburgh. The guy is naturally funny, he and a friend started making this series called Pittsburgh Dad on YouTube as a hobby. They wanted to work in their medium. It was a big hit (https://www.youtube.com/user/pittsburghdad) and it pays for them to do it full-time. They're not making hedge fund money (but then again who really is outside of a few guys in NYC overrepresented on this board), but it's a really good salary and they get to do what they want. This will sound harsh, but if your son is going to school hoping to just get a good film job out of college due to his degree he's going to be out of luck. There are a lot of very talented people who aren't waiting for a degree, they're out making films right now. I think that's what your son should be doing, he should be making movies, posting on YouTube and building a brand. Film doesn't care where you went to school, just the results. You need to seriously evaluate his talent, but it might be a better investment to stop sending checks to NYU and instead use that money to seed him. What if he used his tuition to make films? He'd have a huge head start. This seems to be gary vaynerchuck's philosophy.

Yes you are a good operator maybe even great one. Most are not willing to execute and deal with the daily feedback loop. Notice I said willing. Good operating and executing is mainly willingness and adjusting. The feedback loops are so short its easier to succeed if there is a willingness to do the daily work. You have a great formula if you can execute passive investing. That said, you would be in the top 1 percent if you pull off being a good operator and a very good passive investor. Going all in on your strengths is absolute key to success. So after 8 years or so you will have enough data to go all in on your strengths.

100 percent agree. Hard work + DNA.

I've been at this for 4 years. On an overall basis I've outperformed over those four years. Do I think I'm a "winner"? Heck no. I'm convinced I will probably under-perform over my lifetime. I am OK with that. Let me repeat that: I am OK with underperforming. It is still possible to get rich despite underperforming. I don't have a huge capital base where a 2% difference translates to millions of dollars. I concentrate on being good at my job and increasing my salary and title. If my stock picks (in my signature) underperform a bit, I am OK with that. I think they have more sustainable earnings than the S&P as a whole, but I am going into the "deal" assuming I could very well be wrong. I am OK with that. In fact, I think most of my "errors" have been due to reaching too hard trying desperately to outperform. Now I just try to find stable cash flows at a reasonable price (i.e. market multiple) and "get rich slowly". That's cool you have accepted this. You will get rich with acceptance of strengths( good at job bring value to firm etc). Investing has a long feedback loop. That said, 4 years is to early and you still have time to shift into a good to great investor. Once you are in the game for like 8 years you can know if investing is a strength and that you can execute. John Maynard Keynes was a shitty investor that turned into a great one. Anomalies exist.

You're partly right! That's a very hard thing for people to accept...so you will get push back on this. You can have the right training and that's what Benjamin Graham, Buffett, et al are to investors, but: - You cannot teach or train the right temperament - Or how someone will react to a crisis - You cannot teach patience - You cannot teach someone to think independently if they aren't prone to that type of thinking...thus you get cloning practiced rampantly these days - You cannot teach someone to manage risk, especially if they are prone to a gambling mentality or an overly conservative mentality So alongside a firm, if not enlightened grasp, of how to apply an intelligent framework to evaluating securities, you need a number of other characteristics, including both emotional and intellectual traits. That's hard to find! The solace that all investors have though is that they can hone these skills and become better versions of themselves. So while everyone may not be great, most can be good! Cheers! Its great getting feedback from the caliber of businessman and investor you are. ( yes i'm putting you up on a pedestal)

Good points. The narrative i'm getting so far is its a mix of DNA/edge. Small data set but majority stays mix. Majority usually is wrong. I still stick with DNA with context/intuition. To clarify i'm talking about very good to great investors. Which statistically I think is less than five percent of investors.

Good point about feedback loops. Business there are daily positive or negative feedback. Investing is a different beast much longer term. Goal of thread is the collective opinions of the investors here.

I don't like responding to my own thread before engagement. I'm stuck in a blizzard and about to go shoveling snow so I can eat. That said, we know margin of safety is the three most important words in investing. The three most important words in business execution is "TVA" which is The Value Add.

Great I have your attention with the subject line. It seems to me that great investors or very good ones are wired that way. Its in the DNA and cant be taught. Many variables like parenting and interests before the age of 13-14 matter. For some context i'm a pretty shitty investor ( average returns with low capital base) that's why I don't give advice and i'm not active on the forum while being a member since feb 2009. I'm a good operator though I run two hotels and can talk about executing all day. That said, this is a investing forum. In 7 years I might come back and brand myself as a great investor. That said, i'm convinced that investing is intuition, context, and DNA based. Lets be intellectually honest if you have been at this for 5-7 years and you are not winning. You can still learn,model, and read that's fine. But, 97 percent chance you are not destined to be a great investor. Adjusting and shifting to find your strengths is absolutely key to everything and especially in business. Listening to investors that are winning is why I still check this forum. People like eric, oddball, and some others. My question is that investors that have been playing this game say for two business cycles 8 years or so and are not winning. Are you still optimist that a shift will occur to make you very good to great or do you need a dose of intellectual honesty?

Any culture does down when the ceo/founder is not involved in the daily operation of the business. The chairman is running a public company now and this forum is not a priority anymore. Which is absolutely the right move.

God bless.

+1. When in doubt, avoid is great in the investing game. That said, in life testing assumptions is paramount. When in doubt in life test the assumption and lean into it. Investing is much easier than creating a lifestyle or breaking self limiting beliefs.

Don't listen to me I'm average in the public markets. That said, its all about conviction and timing. Its all subjective except timing. First gain conviction and fuck timing. Conviction and timing are also interconnected which is paradoxical.

I just found out about this site www.tipranks.com. I like how they track blogger picks and rank them. They also have a top 25 list of financial bloggers etc. premfan

Warren Buffett

I would choose companies that create addictions in people that mostly twelve step groups can solve: 1.) Coke( sugar addiction) 2.) Boston Beer ( classic) 3.) Airbnb ( escapism, fomo ( fear of missing out), creates novelty addiction, sex addiction ( living in international countries on short term basis to pick up foreign women)

It depends how much of your net worth is in stocks. As an example if 20 percent of my net worth is in the market I would put 100 percent in a stock all factors considering. The other 80 percent which includes real estate and other alternatives would serve as a buffer. If all my net worth is in the market or 80 percent or so I would never put 100 percent in a stock.

Good interview, congrats.

Hi Guys, Is there a link to the talk?

excellent interview nate!