This video shows Warren Buffett & Charlie Munger at their best. Warren explains that a Graham Strategy only works with small capital amounts, some of the time &turnover is inverse to business quality. Charlie gives an example of when Phil Fisher went wrong
https://t.co/TJum9Li9WZ
Had some fun getting Gemini to evaluate my portfolio. It’s not totally correct as some of the holdings are no longer there. The returns are money weighted to take into account timing. Hopefully the next years will be lucky too and wishing you the best for your investing.
Fossil Group $fosl under Franco Fogliato has dropped the bullshit of cost cutting programs called ‘New World’ and ‘Transform and Grow’ and called it a turnaround plan.
While the company is still cash flow negative, the market has become much more positive about its prospects.
I think the tenet of a value investor is to be able to participate in strong upside stories whilst thinking hard about risk.
Bill Miller’s investing 1% of his portfolio in bitcoin a few years ago shows that position sizing can be its own margin for safety and not just price.
@firstadopter All great companies have been through such drawdowns.
Personally I would have liked more explanation of the rationale for the Warner acquisition instead of building it out ourselves ; also wonder whether cheaper Bollywood acquisition wouldn’t be a better long term bet
FactSet 🇺🇸 $FDS
My latest deep dive is a 50-page report on FactSet, the 5th largest financial market data platform.
I discuss its history since the 1970s, how it's competed in the consolidating market data industry, unit economics, growth prospects and a deep dive on its valuation.
Available on the Global Outperformers substack.
$greggs posted q4 earnings:
*Like-for-like in company owned stores isn't well defined. Is it distorted by including new stores?
*They obviously weren't able to pass increased costs through to customers but cant be blunt about it
*Empire building continues
Share price down >8%
@DrDavidKass If other companies used this percentage of CEO pay to any metric, managers compensation would fall drastically. Berkshire shareholders are still getting an amazing deal.
The heart of investing isn’t individual stock selection but portfolio allocation: to reduce permanent capital destruction in downturns and have exposure to appreciation in upturns.
About each individual stock, there are always good arguments on both sides about why to buy or sell
With all this brouhaha around Netflix, I’ve just upgraded my subscription to the full 4K.
As a shareholder my inclination is that Netflix should continue to grow organically. Even if we acquire Warner, we will have to remain on out toes as eye ball time will always be competitive
Every market cycle has a style or approach that pays off disproportionately.
Value in the early 2000s, Growth in the 2010s, or Capital Light Compounders more recently, each era has its winners, and investors aligned with that approach, by accident or intentionally, often believe they have found the investing holy grail.
Then, performance begins to fade and investors wait, for years or even a career, for that style to return to favor. This can be even more pronounced in fund management, as once you’ve made a lot of money doing things a certain way there’s a resistance to change. Even small adjustments can be criticized as the dreaded "style drift” by consultants, and if combined with lagging performance, likely result in the loss of client confidence.
I’ve become cautious as owner-operator and founder-driven investment approaches have performed well and become popular. Many of these companies appear to be bid up to prices that already reflect the optionality embedded in the business models.
So what’s the solution? Backing great CEOs early.
The companies are less polished, the numbers are messy, and the potential earnings power isn’t obvious….yet. While this approach demands more confidence in your qualitative judgment and a willingness to invest without relying on numbers as a crutch, investing when the moat is being built can be immensely lucrative. At the end of the day, people are a company’s most reliable leading indicator.
These investments often fly under the radar of institutions, which are structurally limited in how they invest. Liquidity, size constraints, compliance restrictions, and career risk are all barriers. It’s hard to pitch a company with limited history or profits to an investment committee—no matter how good the operator is.
Getting in before them is the opportunity.
I view Brookfield ( $BN ) similar to $ASML.
ASML bets you will need advanced machines, while Brookfield bets you will need power. It wins no matter which company has the best AI.
Brookfield acts as the landlord. They don't build a data center and hope people show up. They sign leases around 20 years in length (with an average of 14 years remaining). Brookfield’s contracts are primarily long-term, inflation-linked agreements where the tenant bears the cost of power.
They partner with countries and tech giants like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon. These tenants have better credit quality than most nations.
As a shareholder of say Google, you want them focusing on chips and software, not becoming a utility company that manages hydroelectric dams and nuclear plants. They partner with Brookfield to secure guaranteed, massive-scale green energy without having to build and manage the entire power grid themselves. This also helps them stay capital-light.
This creates the ultimate power moat.
It often takes 5 to 10 years to get new electricity permits, and it is extremely hard to do. Brookfield already has the power and land ready. If a company wants to compete in AI, they have to use Brookfield's sites. In exchange, they often sign "take-or-pay" contracts. This means the company agrees to either take the service or pay for it anyway.
Brookfield owns critical assets like dams and solar. You cannot disrupt a hydroelectric dam or a 50 mile high-voltage wire. They also own Westinghouse, one of the biggest nuclear technology companies in the world.
When technology becomes more efficient, we don't use less energy. We use way, way more (Jevons paradox). This drives more demand for the green energy Brookfield owns.
These are also fungible assets. If for some reason AI suddenly died tomorrow, those data centers are still giant buildings with massive cooling and direct lines to 100 megawatts of power. Whether that is quantum computing, AI, or something we have not invented yet, the future will require high-voltage electricity.
These companies aren't just going to stop paying Brookfield. If they do, they lose their entire AI cloud. Even if a tenant does fail (despite their high credit), Brookfield owns the land, the building, and the power line. The rest of the world is hungry for AI, and they can easily find a new tenant.
This still blows my mind…
How many ppl know what happened during 2000-2009 lost decade?
Annualized returns ranked by asset class:
S&P 500 = -1.0%
US large value = 4.4%
US microcap = 6.3%
Int’l value = 6.7%
Int’l small cap = 8.7%
US small value = 9.1%
EM large = 9.5%
US REITs = 10.5%
Int’l small value = 11.3%
EM small cap = 12.3%
EM value = 13.9%
Peter Lynch was on Squawk Box today and dropped some wisdom for all of us to listen to. One of the best investors there ever was and ever will be...
Take a listen.
When Netflix first announced its intention to acquire Warner, its stock fell; then when it was apparent there was strong competition its stock recovered; then when Warner’s bid was thought to be the stronger, Netflix stock fell; now it rose because Warner management recommended