Good to Great - Jim Collins

[yp]

[amazonsearch]Good to Great - Jim Collins[/amazonsearch]

 

Started reading this book a few days ago. About a chapter into it and enjoying it very much so far.

 

Seems like a great read to get to know what makes a "great" company "great". The type of circumstances, the type of people, the type of leadership (Collins talks about Level 5 Leaders; those with humility & will and a willingness to put the company ahead of their selfish motives.)

 

 

I'll post my review of the book once I'm done (though it might be a while now with school going)  :) .

 

Anyone else read it yet?

[vinod1]

[amazonsearch]Good to Great - Jim Collins[/amazonsearch]

 

Started reading this book a few days ago. About a chapter into it and enjoying it very much so far.

 

Seems like a great read to get to know what makes a "great" company "great". The type of circumstances, the type of people, the type of leadership (Collins talks about Level 5 Leaders; those with humility & will and a willingness to put the company ahead of their selfish motives.)

 

 

I'll post my review of the book once I'm done (though it might be a while now with school going)  :) .

 

Anyone else read it yet?

 

You might want to first read "The halo effect" before wasting time on this book.

 

Vinod

[Kraven]

[amazonsearch]Good to Great - Jim Collins[/amazonsearch]

 

Started reading this book a few days ago. About a chapter into it and enjoying it very much so far.

 

Seems like a great read to get to know what makes a "great" company "great". The type of circumstances, the type of people, the type of leadership (Collins talks about Level 5 Leaders; those with humility & will and a willingness to put the company ahead of their selfish motives.)

 

 

I'll post my review of the book once I'm done (though it might be a while now with school going)  :) .

 

Anyone else read it yet?

 

You might want to first read "The halo effect" before wasting time on this book.

 

Vinod

 

+1

[yp]

[amazonsearch]Good to Great - Jim Collins[/amazonsearch]

 

Started reading this book a few days ago. About a chapter into it and enjoying it very much so far.

 

Seems like a great read to get to know what makes a "great" company "great". The type of circumstances, the type of people, the type of leadership (Collins talks about Level 5 Leaders; those with humility & will and a willingness to put the company ahead of their selfish motives.)

 

 

I'll post my review of the book once I'm done (though it might be a while now with school going)  :) .

 

Anyone else read it yet?

 

You might want to first read "The halo effect" before wasting time on this book.

 

Vinod

 

Really? It's not very good? It had some good reviews on Amazon...

 

Anything in particular that you guys don't like about this book?

 

Also, "The Halo Effect", is that the one by Phil Rosenzwig?

[Liberty]

Really? It's not very good? It had some good reviews on Amazon...

 

Anything in particular that you guys don't like about this book?

 

Also, "The Halo Effect", is that the one by Phil Rosenzwig?

 

We have a thread about the Halo Effect here:

 

http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/books/the-halo-effect-phil-rosenzweig/

 

I'm sure the Collins book is well-written and well argued, it's just that foundational premise of it is deeply flawed, as explained in the halo effect, so pretty much everything built on top of it is highly suspect.

[DCG]

I read Good to Great recently and was mostly let down.

[yp]

Really? It's not very good? It had some good reviews on Amazon...

 

Anything in particular that you guys don't like about this book?

 

Also, "The Halo Effect", is that the one by Phil Rosenzwig?

 

We have a thread about the Halo Effect here:

 

http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/books/the-halo-effect-phil-rosenzweig/

 

I'm sure the Collins book is well-written and well argued, it's just that foundational premise of it is deeply flawed, as explained in the halo effect, so pretty much everything built on top of it is highly suspect.

 

I see what you mean. I'd like to read it still but I'll consider the points the author raises with a grain of salt. After reading the "The Halo Effect" thread and especially the blurb by "vinod1", I guess the issue is that Collins is looking at some of the correlations of successful businesses and taking them as causations. I'll definitely keep this in mind.

 

However, it seems to me as though The Halo Effect is more focused on studying the study of business; is this the case?

 

If so, are there any other good books on building a great business? Or discerning a great business from a good business?

 

Thanks for the input guys!

[Crip1]

Full Disclosure: I've not read The Halo Effect nor the thread related thereto. I did read Good to Great and, bucking the trend, liked it very much. Will look up The Halo Effect thread and review before posting more.

 

-Crip

[John Hjorth]

I ordered and read this book in September 2023, based on Lars [ @Viking ] mentioning Jim Collins' authorship in a topic in CoBFs section for Fairfax Financial Holdings related to considerations about the quality of the company from an investment perspective.

 

The book is based on empirical studies of a row [28] of exeptional successful listed companies for a long term period - study work in progress period of 5 years says a lot about the extent of the work underlying the book - performed not by one person, but a research team - up to the year of the release of the book - 2001, with also a stab taken on reverse engineering the causes for the exceptional success of these companies, by

 

The really mindblowing and striking exercise is then - after reading the book - to take that particular list of companies and to try see 'where' those companies are today, - now 20+, almost 25 years later - and also to try to figure out why! 

 

The subtitle to the book is : 'Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't'.

 

From Chapter 1, - called ' Good is the enemy of great' -, the start, - here meant as a teaser :

 

Quote

Good is the enemy of great.

 

And that is one of the key reasons why we have so little that becomes great.

 

We don't have great schools, principally because we have good schools. We don't have great government, pricipally because we have good government. Few people attain great lives, in large part because it is just so easy to settle for a good life. The vast majority of companies never become great, precisely because the vast majority become quite good - and that is their main problem.

 

[dealraker]

1 hour ago, John Hjorth said:

I ordered and read this book in September 2023, based on Lars [ @Viking ] mentioning Jim Collins' authorship in a topic in CoBFs section for Fairfax Financial Holdings related to considerations about the quality of the company from an investment perspective.

 

The book is based on empirical studies of a row [28] of exeptional successful listed companies for a long term period - study work in progress period of 5 years says a lot about the extent of the work underlying the book - performed not by one person, but a research team - up to the year of the release of the book - 2001, with also a stab taken on reverse engineering the causes for the exceptional success of these companies, by

 

The really mindblowing and striking exercise is then - after reading the book - to take that particular list of companies and to try see 'where' those companies are today, - now 20+, almost 25 years later - and also to try to figure out why! 

 

The subtitle to the book is : 'Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't'.

 

From Chapter 1, - called ' Good is the enemy of great' -, the start, - here meant as a teaser :

 

 

I've now, years and years, later still not figured out this.  It is simply factual, not about me.  Here goes:

 

I repeatedly read things such as this, you know...the great companies and that you must own them and above all chant it up while doing so (while owning them).  In recent years the X (Twitter) posts, you know where those chanting up the hero stocks as if there's a "connection" to these managers via owning the big recent performers.  Yet over and over and over and over again I spend some effort - and it often takes the quite the effort - to find out the actual returns such individuals and institutions get via their ownership (of the great companies).  Except for a few my returns exceed these publishing experts and often by a big margin.

 

All while I own little of the published great companies whatsoever.  And then there's a an investor right here on COBF who I follow and...(well...it is the same story).

 

A fisherman walks in to the tackle shop.  He immediately sees and is star struck by a lure with 8 hooks and 8 colors.  He asks the clerk, "Sir...does this thing actually catch fish?"  

 

The clerk replies, "Mr. I don't sell to fish."

 

Bill Ackman just bought Brookfield.  About a year and a few days ago we here discussed and many bought Brookfield.  We were up 80% or more by the time Bill came.  The company...and the inevitable story publisher (Bill will do what Bill does)..same old story.

 

 

Edited November 16 by dealraker

[John Hjorth]

Charlie [ @dealraker ],

 

I'm not sure I understand the point of your post above here related to the book.

 

Is it about Jim Collins being promotional? Or is about about doubt about if the content of the book can be used as a basis for evolving a personal investment framework? Or something else?

 

Edit :

 

Isen't your personal awesome long term track record principally about this? :

 

 

Edited November 16 by John Hjorth

[dealraker]

7 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

Charlie [ @dealraker ],

 

I'm not sure I understand the point of your post above here related to the book.

 

Is it about Jim Collins being promotional? Or is about about doubt about if the content of the book can be used as a basis for evolving a personal investment framework? Or something else?

 

Edit :

 

Isen't your personal awesome long term track record principally about this? :

 

 

My comment is 100% not directed at a guy named Jim Collins.  If you've an author of a book, an article, or just posting  and you obviously have got it figured out that these stocks are the ticket to paradise, well show me your super investment performance.

 

Value Line claimed for decades their "timeliness" system led to crazy good - simply phenomenal returns and riches.  One small problem, the mutual funds they created that used the timing model had awful performance.  

[John Hjorth]

31 minutes ago, dealraker said:

My comment is 100% not directed at a guy named Jim Collins.  If you've an author of a book, an article, or just posting  and you obviously have got it figured out that these stocks are the ticket to paradise, well show me your super investment performance. ...

 

Charlie [ @dealraker ],

 

What is it really,  you're attempting / trying to provide to 'anti-sell' [Yes, you're a 'seller' of sentiment here on CoBF]? - And to who here on CoBF?

 

- This topic is about the book by Jim Collins 'Good to great', not what you feel inclined to talk about in this topic by actual and present sentiment!  - in any sector. -The book is about a proposal for a mental framework, which everyone here on CoBF personally can ditch totally, or try to apply, to various degrees, based on personal will and determination.  The choice and discretion is fully at the reader!

 

I'm not going to spend time furnishing your request with digging up anyones 'super investment performance'. [Please give me a break here.]

 

It's not that complicated. - This is also why we have a 'Books' category available for us all here on CoBF : Try to share what you're reading, to the best of us all, based on personal personal experience, by studying and reading. With no strings attached to sharing.

[dealraker]

1 minute ago, John Hjorth said:

 

Charlie [ @dealraker ],

 

What is it really,  you're attempting / trying to provide to 'anti-sell' [Yes, you're a 'seller' of sentiment here on CoBF]? - And to who here on CoBF?

 

- This topic is about the book by Jim Collins 'Good to great', not what you feel inclined to talk about in this topic by actual and present sentiment!  - in any sector. -The book is about a proposal for a mental framework, which everyone here on CoBF personally can ditch totally, or try to apply, to various degrees, based on personal will and determination.  The choice and discretion is fully at the reader!

 

I'm not going to spend time furnishing your request with digging up anyones 'super investment performance'. [Please give me a break here.]

 

It's not that complicated. - This is also why we have a 'Books' category available for us all here on CoBF : Try to share what you're reading, to the best of us all, based on personal personal experience, by studying and reading. With no strings attached to sharing.

Probably my error of quick reading and responding.   I always have a hard time understanding your posts (my issue) so I probably shouldn't be so spontaneous in reply.  But some write as prepared text and some like me write as conversation.  So things happen.

 

Later.

[Stuart D]

19 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

I ordered and read this book in September 2023, based on Lars [ @Viking ] mentioning Jim Collins' authorship in a topic in CoBFs section for Fairfax Financial Holdings related to considerations about the quality of the company from an investment perspective.

 

The book is based on empirical studies of a row [28] of exeptional successful listed companies for a long term period - study work in progress period of 5 years says a lot about the extent of the work underlying the book - performed not by one person, but a research team - up to the year of the release of the book - 2001, with also a stab taken on reverse engineering the causes for the exceptional success of these companies, by

 

The really mindblowing and striking exercise is then - after reading the book - to take that particular list of companies and to try see 'where' those companies are today, - now 20+, almost 25 years later - and also to try to figure out why! 

 

The subtitle to the book is : 'Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't'.

 

From Chapter 1, - called ' Good is the enemy of great' -, the start, - here meant as a teaser :

 

 

 

So greatness is extraordinary hard to achieve and even harder to maintain?

[John Hjorth]

Stuart [ @Stuart D ],

 

I would say : Yes. Not 'extraordinary hard', but 'incredible hard' to maintain. It's about competition and innovation dynamics, and to be where the puck is going, not where it is. It is about the life cycle of companies over the long term.

 

Buying so-so companies or even shit-cos [turn-arounds, that may eventually not turn around] may require quite some work, and may require accept of / cause some more mental load along the way.

 

Each to our own, luckily, depending on style, personality and personal situation.

 

There is also an element of facts checking combined with math embedded in it, - there is no way to achieve a long term 15 per cent return on a company running at 5 per cent ROE over its business cycle.

 

The best book I've ever read about this is: 'Investing in Value Creators - Time Tested Principles for Long Term Stock Investments' by Oddbørn Dybvad, Oddbjørn is Norwegian, Investment Manager at REQ AS, Oslo. If you don't like math, the book likely has no personal appeal for you. The book is available on Amazon.

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

If you look up Brett Gardners [ @Brett ]s Linkedin profile, on his wall you'll find gems, that for reasons explained in Bretts new book by him, did not make it to Bretts new book. One of these gems is a letter with attachments to a closed, private group of guys, back in in Buffetts early days, where Mr. Buffett met regularly with Munger, Schloss and a few others to discuss investments in private, in and under casual circumstances and surroundings.

 

Already in Buffetts early innings he was mentally occupied by this, despite of what he was then buying himself. I have been really flabbergasted reading this not so long ago.

 

Edited November 18 by John Hjorth

[coc]

@dealraker (the wise man of this board as far as I'm convinced) is making the simple and correct point: "If you're so smart why aren't you rich?" 

 

If Jim Collins has an algorithm to predict what makes a great company, why isn't he an immensely successful equity investor/venture capitalist etc.? Is there any evidence this is the case?

 

Anyways, G2G was debunked by The Halo Effect and similar. 

[Gamecock-YT]

My brother was gifted this book from his boss as he has embarked on his first 'middle management' job. I told him he'd be better off with Bob Fifer's Double your profits in six months or less.

[Saluki]

18 hours ago, coc said:

@dealraker (the wise man of this board as far as I'm convinced) is making the simple and correct point: "If you're so smart why aren't you rich?" 

 

If Jim Collins has an algorithm to predict what makes a great company, why isn't he an immensely successful equity investor/venture capitalist etc.? Is there any evidence this is the case?

 

 

There are many doctors who smoke or are obese, yet give you health advice.  It's not that they can't do it, it's that it is difficult because of a lot of it doesn't involve math, it's temperament and emotions. A Nobel prize winner, I forget which one, who worked on capital assets pricing model and asset allocation was asked how he invested his own money and he said he put it half in stocks and half in bonds .  That's stuff that your grandpa's accountant will tell you to do. The interviewer asked him to justify this decision that was suboptimal, according to his own research.  He said that he just wanted the decision that he didn't want to think about and with the least amount of regret if he was wrong.  If he invested his money all in particular stocks and lost a bunch of it, not only would he be upset that he lost money, but he would be a laughing stock among his peers and the Wall Street guys would have a field day lampooning his research to their clients and getting rich off his mistakes.  That statement is all ego, not logic or math. 

 

I think another valid criticism is that the criteria he used isn't incorrect, but it has an obvious overlooked flaw:  survivorship bias. You don't see all the companies that tried for the "big hairy audacious goals" and went bankrupt because they stretched too far. Just because something worked the first time, doesn't mean that it was a good idea and that you should do more of it.  Maybe the ones that kept doing it stumbled afterwards.  Maybe that type of culture allows a company to grow, but growth leads to inefficiency.  When Tesla was on the verge of bankruptcy because they couldn't survive if they didn't produce X numbers of vehicles, they wouldn't think twice about laying off someone who's work was slipping because his wife was undergoing cancer treatments. Do you think they would do that now? Do you think Microsoft would do that? 

[John Hjorth]

I acknowlege the flaw in the design of the study underlying the book. I think Collins actually also do that himself.

 

From Jim Collins personal website : Books - Overview :

 

 

The Economist - Business | Business.view [July 7^th 2009] : Good to great to gone.

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

YouTube - Drucker Institute [May 14^th 2010] : Jim Collins - Jim Collins Drucker Day Keynote :

 

 

Listening to this actually made my day today.

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

Think old - thousands of years old - Traditional Chinese medicine. How was it developed? Normative science? - Trial and error?

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

From the webpage of one of the subsidiaries of a highly successful Dansh healthcare company, who like the main competitor really can't explain why their meds everyone wants to buy, work : Novo Nordisk Pharmatech :

 

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

Do I believe it? : Yes. Do I belive in it? : Yes, but not religiously. I'm professionally trained and raised to believe in it as the basis by the person [boss] taking me to the next level when the influence on me from my parents faded after I left the nest.

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

Gotham Artists : Jim Collins. [Who know how much money he has?]

Edited November 19 by John Hjorth