Objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear
One thing we might say: change may be closer in the proverbial mirror than it appears.
The Art of Boring™ was created for curious and passionate investors. We share strategies, frameworks, and insights to help readers and listeners make better investment decisions. Our aim? To provide some bottom-up, long-term investing signal to cut through the short-term noise.
One thing we might say: change may be closer in the proverbial mirror than it appears.
This week we have the pleasure of partnering again with Beakerhead, a Calgary-based charitable organization that “brings together the arts, sciences, and engineering sectors to build, engage, compete, and exhibit interactive works of art, engineered creativity and entertainment.”
About a decade ago, was an investor to ask, “What are the best businesses? The ones nearly immune to competition?” the most robust options on the market were arguably two-way network-effect businesses.
The risk that a change in the rules governing an industry could impair an institution's financial performance—more casually known as “stroke of the pen risk,”—is something that all companies are exposed to in varying degrees.
We must not ignore the dragons in our lives or they will grow bigger and bigger, until they are destabilizing. Acknowledging your dragons is necessary to keep them kitten-sized.
For investors, trust is an especially fascinating topic. It’s often a factor within the investment thesis since it relates to management teams. And yet, how should we consider “trust” in the context of management teams? How much trust is really enough to invest with someone? And is it ever prudent to fully trust a management team?
Would you rather give up your favourite food for the rest of your life or wake up every day with a 5% chance of being completely covered in peanut butter?
Reminiscent of master escape artist Harry Houdini—who made a small fortune performing upside down and bound in heavily shackled circumstances—Argentina issued a $2.75 billion century bond in U.S. dollars at an interest rate of 7.125%.1 This means that the Argentinian government doesn’t have to pay investors back until the year 2117.
In our experience, it is useful to have a checklist to question the validity of statistics. We find checklists to be powerful tools in our research process—especially in our forensic accounting and risk work—and they are no less potent here. And one of the simplest first “checks” when it comes to evaluating a stat is what I will call the New Zealand vegetarian problem.
We need to ask: what is the best way to deal with new information? Fortunately, there is a tool that can help us with this problem: Bayes’ Theorem.
Since 2010, there has been growth in a certain breed of bond in debt markets. This bond has a unique risk profile: it is a bond until a crisis scenario is triggered and then it turns into equity. If that sounds unappealing to you, we wouldn’t blame you.
Not everybody does it, but for long-term investors, the edge scuttlebutt provides is worth the time and effort.
One thing we might say: change may be closer in the proverbial mirror than it appears.
This week we have the pleasure of partnering again with Beakerhead, a Calgary-based charitable organization that “brings together the arts, sciences, and engineering sectors to build, engage, compete, and exhibit interactive works of art, engineered creativity and entertainment.”
About a decade ago, was an investor to ask, “What are the best businesses? The ones nearly immune to competition?” the most robust options on the market were arguably two-way network-effect businesses.
The risk that a change in the rules governing an industry could impair an institution's financial performance—more casually known as “stroke of the pen risk,”—is something that all companies are exposed to in varying degrees.
We must not ignore the dragons in our lives or they will grow bigger and bigger, until they are destabilizing. Acknowledging your dragons is necessary to keep them kitten-sized.
For investors, trust is an especially fascinating topic. It’s often a factor within the investment thesis since it relates to management teams. And yet, how should we consider “trust” in the context of management teams? How much trust is really enough to invest with someone? And is it ever prudent to fully trust a management team?
Would you rather give up your favourite food for the rest of your life or wake up every day with a 5% chance of being completely covered in peanut butter?
Reminiscent of master escape artist Harry Houdini—who made a small fortune performing upside down and bound in heavily shackled circumstances—Argentina issued a $2.75 billion century bond in U.S. dollars at an interest rate of 7.125%.1 This means that the Argentinian government doesn’t have to pay investors back until the year 2117.
In our experience, it is useful to have a checklist to question the validity of statistics. We find checklists to be powerful tools in our research process—especially in our forensic accounting and risk work—and they are no less potent here. And one of the simplest first “checks” when it comes to evaluating a stat is what I will call the New Zealand vegetarian problem.
We need to ask: what is the best way to deal with new information? Fortunately, there is a tool that can help us with this problem: Bayes’ Theorem.
Since 2010, there has been growth in a certain breed of bond in debt markets. This bond has a unique risk profile: it is a bond until a crisis scenario is triggered and then it turns into equity. If that sounds unappealing to you, we wouldn’t blame you.
Not everybody does it, but for long-term investors, the edge scuttlebutt provides is worth the time and effort.
In 1968, researchers from Stanford University stuck a marshmallow in front of a four year old girl and gave her a choice: eat the marshmallow now or wait 15 minutes and receive TWO marshmallows.
Two important events involving Russia occurred in the last week. First, Russia amassed a highly suspicious buildup of 20,000 troops on the Ukrainian border. Second, Russia’s yield curve inverted.
Narrow rules have a cost. Although there is value in the clarity of rule, process and position, a system must also be flexible.
Just how important is a common language to investing? While some investors view it as the sort of soft, fluffy stuff best left to liberal arts majors, empirically—and in our experience— it is an essential feature of high performing investment teams.
A few weeks ago, I was introduced to Google’s Toothbrush Test. Contrary to the images that the name inspires, this test does not involve sticking a web-enabled toothbrush into your mouth to collect data on your molars. Instead, it relates to how Google allocates capital.
This past week, one of my colleagues shared a learning at our weekly research meeting. Christian and his wife, Siggi, were on vacation when Siggi unfortunately dropped her iPhone into the bath.
Imagine you spent 4% of your life waiting in line. Given that there are 8,765 hours in a year, this would imply that you spent 350 hours each year staring at the backs of people’s heads.
The restaurant industry is tough. Virtually anyone with decent cooking skills and a modest amount of capital can open one; the barriers to entry are quite low. Restaurateurs must also face an unpredictable customer base, as well as significant competition and substitutes.
History is ripe with hucksters. Investors were reminded of this again this month when stock market darling Gowex declared bankruptcy.
In 1968, researchers from Stanford University stuck a marshmallow in front of a four year old girl and gave her a choice: eat the marshmallow now or wait 15 minutes and receive TWO marshmallows.
Two important events involving Russia occurred in the last week. First, Russia amassed a highly suspicious buildup of 20,000 troops on the Ukrainian border. Second, Russia’s yield curve inverted.
Narrow rules have a cost. Although there is value in the clarity of rule, process and position, a system must also be flexible.
Just how important is a common language to investing? While some investors view it as the sort of soft, fluffy stuff best left to liberal arts majors, empirically—and in our experience— it is an essential feature of high performing investment teams.
A few weeks ago, I was introduced to Google’s Toothbrush Test. Contrary to the images that the name inspires, this test does not involve sticking a web-enabled toothbrush into your mouth to collect data on your molars. Instead, it relates to how Google allocates capital.
This past week, one of my colleagues shared a learning at our weekly research meeting. Christian and his wife, Siggi, were on vacation when Siggi unfortunately dropped her iPhone into the bath.
Imagine you spent 4% of your life waiting in line. Given that there are 8,765 hours in a year, this would imply that you spent 350 hours each year staring at the backs of people’s heads.
The restaurant industry is tough. Virtually anyone with decent cooking skills and a modest amount of capital can open one; the barriers to entry are quite low. Restaurateurs must also face an unpredictable customer base, as well as significant competition and substitutes.
History is ripe with hucksters. Investors were reminded of this again this month when stock market darling Gowex declared bankruptcy.
Why management teams matter, energy companies rarely meet our investment criteria, and JPMorgan and State Street differ from many regional banks.
Why genuine knowledge building and the ability to learn effectively in investing is difficult, and how we try to work around those challenges.
The major themes of the quarter, where we are in the interest rate hike cycle, and our thoughts on the recent banking crisis.
This episode, we discuss our seven-point management assessment framework (with examples), our risk management approach, and overall thoughts on energy.
Digging into last year’s performance drivers, the current opportunity set, and benefits of resuming boots-on-the-ground research.
The nuanced impacts of inflation to companies’ balance sheets that investors might be missing.
Chief Investment Officer Paul Moroz shares takeaways from the Research team's annual post-mortem discussions.
Portfolio Manager Crista Caughlin walks listeners through the tumultuous bond market experiences of 2022 and outlines three main economic scenarios the team is monitoring for 2023.
Some of the main challenges facing the continent, what we gleaned from visiting over 45 companies, and ESG considerations that are front of mind for major European investment firms.
A review of last quarter, the major themes and takeaways from 2022, and what’s on the horizon for the new year.
What investors can learn from the S-curves of technologies both old and new.
What we think about the newly proposed tax on share buybacks in Canada, a balanced take on the energy theme, and where we’ve trimmed, exited, and added in the portfolio.
How do investors figure out what a company is worth? (Especially in a higher inflationary and interest rate environment?)
Why management teams matter, energy companies rarely meet our investment criteria, and JPMorgan and State Street differ from many regional banks.
Why genuine knowledge building and the ability to learn effectively in investing is difficult, and how we try to work around those challenges.
The major themes of the quarter, where we are in the interest rate hike cycle, and our thoughts on the recent banking crisis.
This episode, we discuss our seven-point management assessment framework (with examples), our risk management approach, and overall thoughts on energy.
Digging into last year’s performance drivers, the current opportunity set, and benefits of resuming boots-on-the-ground research.
The nuanced impacts of inflation to companies’ balance sheets that investors might be missing.
Chief Investment Officer Paul Moroz shares takeaways from the Research team's annual post-mortem discussions.
Portfolio Manager Crista Caughlin walks listeners through the tumultuous bond market experiences of 2022 and outlines three main economic scenarios the team is monitoring for 2023.
Some of the main challenges facing the continent, what we gleaned from visiting over 45 companies, and ESG considerations that are front of mind for major European investment firms.
A review of last quarter, the major themes and takeaways from 2022, and what’s on the horizon for the new year.
What investors can learn from the S-curves of technologies both old and new.
What we think about the newly proposed tax on share buybacks in Canada, a balanced take on the energy theme, and where we’ve trimmed, exited, and added in the portfolio.
How do investors figure out what a company is worth? (Especially in a higher inflationary and interest rate environment?)