WEBVTT - Ritholtz's Masters in Business: Aswath Damodaran Interview

0:00:00.120 --> 0:00:03.159
<v Speaker 1>Brought to you by Bank of America. Merrill Lynch seeing

0:00:03.160 --> 0:00:06.120
<v Speaker 1>what others have seen, but uncovering what others may not.

0:00:06.559 --> 0:00:10.280
<v Speaker 1>Global Research that helps you harness disruption. Voted top global

0:00:10.320 --> 0:00:13.880
<v Speaker 1>research firm five years running. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and

0:00:13.920 --> 0:00:21.440
<v Speaker 1>Smith Incorporated. This is Masters in Business with Barry Ridholds

0:00:21.640 --> 0:00:25.560
<v Speaker 1>on Bloomberg Radio. This week on the podcast, we have

0:00:25.920 --> 0:00:31.640
<v Speaker 1>n y u sterns Aswath Dama Doren. He is a

0:00:31.640 --> 0:00:37.240
<v Speaker 1>professor at n y U Stern and specializes in valuation

0:00:37.600 --> 0:00:42.760
<v Speaker 1>and let me spend a moment or two just explaining

0:00:42.800 --> 0:00:46.040
<v Speaker 1>exactly what that means. Whenever you make a purchase, be

0:00:46.120 --> 0:00:50.040
<v Speaker 1>it a private, non publicly traded company, it could be

0:00:50.040 --> 0:00:54.080
<v Speaker 1>private equity, it could be venture capital, or a public company,

0:00:54.200 --> 0:00:56.920
<v Speaker 1>or a hedge fond or a mutual fund or anything

0:00:57.000 --> 0:01:00.520
<v Speaker 1>like that, or a market or an index, you are

0:01:00.640 --> 0:01:05.920
<v Speaker 1>making a valuation decision. You are basically saying this company

0:01:06.080 --> 0:01:09.240
<v Speaker 1>is worth paying this much money for because I expect

0:01:09.240 --> 0:01:12.679
<v Speaker 1>there to be gains in the future, and there are

0:01:12.680 --> 0:01:15.000
<v Speaker 1>a few people in the world who are better at

0:01:15.080 --> 0:01:19.679
<v Speaker 1>making that assessment than than our guest. Um. I'll leave

0:01:19.720 --> 0:01:23.880
<v Speaker 1>out all the specific details of his curriculum VITAE. It's

0:01:23.920 --> 0:01:27.600
<v Speaker 1>too long to list. I need. All I need really

0:01:27.600 --> 0:01:31.160
<v Speaker 1>need to say is he's a rock star professor um.

0:01:31.200 --> 0:01:37.800
<v Speaker 1>Incredibly insightful, eloquent, intelligent, uh sort of guy, really really

0:01:37.880 --> 0:01:42.800
<v Speaker 1>interesting conversation. I this was one of those interviews where

0:01:43.920 --> 0:01:46.640
<v Speaker 1>I expected it to be good and I was delighted

0:01:46.760 --> 0:01:50.440
<v Speaker 1>with how absolutely fascinating the guests was. So with no

0:01:50.520 --> 0:01:55.440
<v Speaker 1>further ado, my conversation with n y U S. Aswath Damadharin.

0:01:58.800 --> 0:02:03.120
<v Speaker 1>This is Master's in Business with Barry Ridholts on Bloomberg Radio.

0:02:03.640 --> 0:02:06.400
<v Speaker 1>My special guest today is n y U S Professor

0:02:06.520 --> 0:02:11.880
<v Speaker 1>Aswath Demodrin. He is the Kirshner Family Chair in Finance

0:02:12.000 --> 0:02:15.399
<v Speaker 1>Education at the n y U Stern School of Business.

0:02:15.560 --> 0:02:18.800
<v Speaker 1>I'm only going to give you an abbreviated version of

0:02:18.840 --> 0:02:21.800
<v Speaker 1>his curriculum vita. Otherwise we'll take up the full hour.

0:02:22.360 --> 0:02:25.240
<v Speaker 1>A b. S. At Madras University and MS from the

0:02:25.280 --> 0:02:29.840
<v Speaker 1>Indian Institute of Management N B A. And PhD from

0:02:29.880 --> 0:02:34.000
<v Speaker 1>the University of California at Los Angeles. He is the

0:02:34.040 --> 0:02:38.760
<v Speaker 1>recipient of too many fellowships and awards for teaching excellence

0:02:38.800 --> 0:02:41.880
<v Speaker 1>to to note other than to point out he is

0:02:41.960 --> 0:02:44.920
<v Speaker 1>the five time winner of the Professor of the Year

0:02:45.480 --> 0:02:48.480
<v Speaker 1>at n y U. He is also the author of

0:02:48.600 --> 0:02:54.760
<v Speaker 1>several highly regarded academic texts on corporate finance, valuation, and

0:02:54.840 --> 0:02:58.240
<v Speaker 1>investment management. He's written so many books. Let me just

0:02:58.560 --> 0:03:03.360
<v Speaker 1>reference a few, The Little of Stock Valuation, investment valuation

0:03:03.440 --> 0:03:09.000
<v Speaker 1>tools and techniques, corporate finance theory and practice, investment philosophies,

0:03:09.040 --> 0:03:12.600
<v Speaker 1>successful strategies, and the investors who made them work, and

0:03:12.800 --> 0:03:17.200
<v Speaker 1>on and on us with Delmaradin. Welcome to Bloomberg. Thank you,

0:03:16.919 --> 0:03:19.799
<v Speaker 1>I'm glad to be here. I'm I'm excited to have

0:03:19.880 --> 0:03:22.840
<v Speaker 1>you because this is an area that is so important

0:03:22.880 --> 0:03:26.720
<v Speaker 1>to investors and we really don't dive as deeply into

0:03:26.800 --> 0:03:30.960
<v Speaker 1>it as we probably should. So so let's just start

0:03:31.160 --> 0:03:35.440
<v Speaker 1>right from the beginning. Where should investors be thinking when

0:03:35.440 --> 0:03:39.400
<v Speaker 1>they look at the question of valuation. I think the

0:03:39.480 --> 0:03:42.160
<v Speaker 1>first thing investors have to be asking is whether they

0:03:42.160 --> 0:03:45.360
<v Speaker 1>should be doing evaluation in the first place, because valuation

0:03:45.440 --> 0:03:48.800
<v Speaker 1>requires two things. One is it requires a willingness to

0:03:48.880 --> 0:03:52.960
<v Speaker 1>learn the basic tools. And many investors want to do valuation,

0:03:52.960 --> 0:03:54.880
<v Speaker 1>but they don't want to learn about accounting. They want

0:03:54.880 --> 0:03:56.640
<v Speaker 1>to do evaluation, but they don't want to learn about

0:03:56.680 --> 0:03:59.119
<v Speaker 1>present value. They want to do valuation, but they don't

0:03:59.120 --> 0:04:02.000
<v Speaker 1>want to understand the basics that drive risk and return.

0:04:02.640 --> 0:04:05.680
<v Speaker 1>And that's lazy. It's lazy, and it leads to you

0:04:05.800 --> 0:04:08.400
<v Speaker 1>spending a lot of time thinking your value companies and

0:04:08.440 --> 0:04:11.360
<v Speaker 1>you walk away with actually nothing to show for it.

0:04:11.960 --> 0:04:13.480
<v Speaker 1>So the first question I would ask you is do

0:04:13.520 --> 0:04:16.080
<v Speaker 1>you have time to be willing to do things you

0:04:16.160 --> 0:04:19.400
<v Speaker 1>might not enjoy doing learning those twos? What is the

0:04:19.440 --> 0:04:22.560
<v Speaker 1>alternative to not learning to do just put your money

0:04:22.600 --> 0:04:24.720
<v Speaker 1>in an index. Fun in the world would be far

0:04:24.760 --> 0:04:26.360
<v Speaker 1>better off if you just put your money in the

0:04:26.360 --> 0:04:27.919
<v Speaker 1>next one, went back to doing what you did with

0:04:27.960 --> 0:04:30.200
<v Speaker 1>the rest of your life. Be a doctor, be an engineer,

0:04:30.320 --> 0:04:33.400
<v Speaker 1>be a plumber, do what you do in your regular life.

0:04:33.440 --> 0:04:35.560
<v Speaker 1>You investing for what it's meant to do, which is

0:04:35.600 --> 0:04:38.920
<v Speaker 1>to preserve and grow what you save from your job.

0:04:39.720 --> 0:04:41.560
<v Speaker 1>And I think for a lot And that's the other

0:04:41.600 --> 0:04:43.640
<v Speaker 1>point it emphasized, because a lot of people invest for

0:04:43.680 --> 0:04:45.760
<v Speaker 1>the wrong reason. They want to get rich. I mean

0:04:45.800 --> 0:04:48.440
<v Speaker 1>that's the reality. We invest because we want to beat

0:04:48.480 --> 0:04:50.880
<v Speaker 1>the market. It's a lottery ticket. We're gonna We're gonna

0:04:50.880 --> 0:04:53.200
<v Speaker 1>find the next to Apple, the next Google, and I

0:04:53.240 --> 0:04:55.760
<v Speaker 1>think in the process we make mistakes, and then we

0:04:55.800 --> 0:04:57.960
<v Speaker 1>beat ourselves up about the mistakes we make, and that

0:04:58.080 --> 0:05:02.240
<v Speaker 1>leads to more mistakes. Sounds fairly like a familiar story.

0:05:02.680 --> 0:05:06.520
<v Speaker 1>So so let's talk about the accounting work. I assume

0:05:07.000 --> 0:05:11.040
<v Speaker 1>you're talking about looking at account statements, looking at balance sheets,

0:05:11.080 --> 0:05:15.120
<v Speaker 1>looking at cash flows. How does the average investor wrap

0:05:15.160 --> 0:05:17.039
<v Speaker 1>their head around. I would say keep it simple, because

0:05:17.080 --> 0:05:19.400
<v Speaker 1>I think if you take an accounting class, the problem

0:05:19.400 --> 0:05:21.760
<v Speaker 1>is an accounting class is all about debit and credit

0:05:21.960 --> 0:05:24.560
<v Speaker 1>and getting you into the nitty gritty of the footnotes.

0:05:25.279 --> 0:05:27.960
<v Speaker 1>I actually did an exercise where I do these webcasts

0:05:27.960 --> 0:05:30.240
<v Speaker 1>where I actually took the propran gamble ten K, and

0:05:30.279 --> 0:05:32.159
<v Speaker 1>what I did was I did a webcast where I

0:05:32.160 --> 0:05:34.680
<v Speaker 1>talked about how little of the ten K is actually

0:05:34.760 --> 0:05:37.599
<v Speaker 1>useful in valuation and how much of it is noise.

0:05:38.480 --> 0:05:42.040
<v Speaker 1>Accountants throw in small stuff with the big stuffy. They're

0:05:42.040 --> 0:05:44.760
<v Speaker 1>incapable of telling the difference the stuff that maddens the

0:05:44.800 --> 0:05:47.880
<v Speaker 1>stuff that doesn't because there accountants the detail oriented, they've

0:05:47.920 --> 0:05:50.240
<v Speaker 1>focused on it. I was about to say, not only

0:05:50.320 --> 0:05:53.120
<v Speaker 1>the detail oriented, but when it comes to a ten K,

0:05:53.800 --> 0:05:56.960
<v Speaker 1>the typical responses, hey disclose it all better to get

0:05:57.000 --> 0:05:59.760
<v Speaker 1>it out than be accused of hiding something later. In fact,

0:05:59.760 --> 0:06:02.280
<v Speaker 1>that the point I make is data is not information.

0:06:02.360 --> 0:06:04.719
<v Speaker 1>We're mistaking the two. We have a lot more data

0:06:04.760 --> 0:06:06.920
<v Speaker 1>than we used to have thirty five years ago. Typical

0:06:06.960 --> 0:06:09.680
<v Speaker 1>ten K now is five times longer than it used

0:06:09.720 --> 0:06:12.520
<v Speaker 1>to be thirty years ago. Really, that's fascinating because of

0:06:12.520 --> 0:06:15.080
<v Speaker 1>all the disclosure requirements. And that's part of the problem

0:06:15.120 --> 0:06:17.200
<v Speaker 1>is people think that if you throw everything into a

0:06:17.240 --> 0:06:20.719
<v Speaker 1>ten K, you are being more informative. I actually suggest

0:06:20.760 --> 0:06:23.239
<v Speaker 1>that maybe we should go back to fifteen page ten ks,

0:06:23.279 --> 0:06:25.919
<v Speaker 1>where you focus on the things that really matter, like

0:06:25.960 --> 0:06:28.479
<v Speaker 1>a nutrition statement on the side of the canda soda.

0:06:29.000 --> 0:06:31.640
<v Speaker 1>Here's the important metrics that you need to know. I'll

0:06:31.640 --> 0:06:34.279
<v Speaker 1>give you an example of a completely useless section of

0:06:34.320 --> 0:06:36.359
<v Speaker 1>a ten K where they describe the risks that they

0:06:36.440 --> 0:06:40.640
<v Speaker 1>might face, like twenty pages. It's exactly it's a lawyer

0:06:40.680 --> 0:06:42.880
<v Speaker 1>writing that stuff. Right in case we get suited. We

0:06:42.960 --> 0:06:45.480
<v Speaker 1>told you competition could come in and take the market,

0:06:45.480 --> 0:06:48.159
<v Speaker 1>as if you didn't know that when you invested. So

0:06:48.400 --> 0:06:50.640
<v Speaker 1>I would actually argue that we're moving in the wrong

0:06:50.720 --> 0:06:54.440
<v Speaker 1>direction by pushing more and more disclosure requirements When In fact,

0:06:54.520 --> 0:06:57.560
<v Speaker 1>we need more focus in financial statements, better and more

0:06:57.600 --> 0:07:00.680
<v Speaker 1>focused exactly releases as opposed to just to your volume.

0:07:00.720 --> 0:07:03.080
<v Speaker 1>In fact, I do a fifteen minute webcast and exactly

0:07:03.200 --> 0:07:05.240
<v Speaker 1>the accounting. I need you to know things like do

0:07:05.320 --> 0:07:07.960
<v Speaker 1>you know the difference between gross income operating income in

0:07:08.040 --> 0:07:11.440
<v Speaker 1>net income? If you don't, you're in trouble, right, So

0:07:11.560 --> 0:07:14.200
<v Speaker 1>the basic stuff so that once you can, it's more

0:07:14.520 --> 0:07:17.760
<v Speaker 1>financial statement analysis and accounting that I want you to know.

0:07:18.160 --> 0:07:21.400
<v Speaker 1>Can you read a statement of cash flows? That's that's

0:07:21.480 --> 0:07:25.360
<v Speaker 1>quite quite interesting. So when we talk about non cash

0:07:25.480 --> 0:07:31.080
<v Speaker 1>charges and amorization and appreciation and goodwill and all these

0:07:31.120 --> 0:07:35.080
<v Speaker 1>fun geeky terms, are these of any assistance to the

0:07:35.120 --> 0:07:38.040
<v Speaker 1>average investor? Most of them are not. I'll tell you

0:07:38.800 --> 0:07:41.840
<v Speaker 1>I've described good will as the most destructive accounting item

0:07:41.920 --> 0:07:45.120
<v Speaker 1>ever created in history. So let's let's delve into that.

0:07:45.280 --> 0:07:48.520
<v Speaker 1>Define goodwill for people who may not be familiar with

0:07:48.560 --> 0:07:51.200
<v Speaker 1>the phrase goodwill is the accountant admitting he screwed up.

0:07:51.320 --> 0:07:52.920
<v Speaker 1>Because that's the way to think about it. Right. So

0:07:52.920 --> 0:07:54.440
<v Speaker 1>if you have a company with the four billion dollar

0:07:54.480 --> 0:07:56.640
<v Speaker 1>book bellion, I pay ten billion the accounting, there's a

0:07:56.720 --> 0:07:59.280
<v Speaker 1>six billion dollar problem to explain away, so he shows

0:07:59.320 --> 0:08:03.440
<v Speaker 1>it as good will. So it's very squishy, it's very elastic.

0:08:03.480 --> 0:08:05.880
<v Speaker 1>You could put whatever you want into that. It's it's

0:08:05.920 --> 0:08:08.680
<v Speaker 1>a plug variable. You put it in because your balance

0:08:08.680 --> 0:08:11.200
<v Speaker 1>sheet has to balance. It is a very unpleasant requirement.

0:08:11.600 --> 0:08:14.360
<v Speaker 1>So good will exist for one reason alone. It balances

0:08:14.440 --> 0:08:17.160
<v Speaker 1>balance sheets. It's a plug variable. In fact, I send

0:08:17.160 --> 0:08:20.560
<v Speaker 1>these suggestions to I F R S and to GAP

0:08:20.600 --> 0:08:22.120
<v Speaker 1>that they never seem to take. And one of the

0:08:22.120 --> 0:08:25.480
<v Speaker 1>suggestions I've sent a few years ago was, let's rename

0:08:25.560 --> 0:08:28.000
<v Speaker 1>goodwill as an algebra when you have a missing barriable

0:08:28.040 --> 0:08:31.600
<v Speaker 1>to make X, because then we wouldn't do crazy things

0:08:31.640 --> 0:08:35.640
<v Speaker 1>like paying for goodwill. I'm Barry Ridlts. You're listening to

0:08:35.880 --> 0:08:39.440
<v Speaker 1>Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My guest today is

0:08:39.480 --> 0:08:44.360
<v Speaker 1>Professor as Damadarn of n y U Stern School of Business.

0:08:44.440 --> 0:08:49.600
<v Speaker 1>He is an expert in the valuation of corporations. Let's

0:08:49.640 --> 0:08:53.440
<v Speaker 1>talk about two of the hottest companies out there, both

0:08:53.440 --> 0:08:58.520
<v Speaker 1>of which seem to have a somewhat ambiguous valuation, Tesla

0:08:58.679 --> 0:09:01.920
<v Speaker 1>and Amazon. So let's let's talk about Tesla. You've done

0:09:01.960 --> 0:09:06.320
<v Speaker 1>so much work on that. What is the bottom line

0:09:06.400 --> 0:09:10.199
<v Speaker 1>with the valuation of Tesla. I mean, with all young companies,

0:09:10.240 --> 0:09:12.480
<v Speaker 1>it's a story that you tell about the company that

0:09:12.600 --> 0:09:17.600
<v Speaker 1>drives your evaluation. The narrative, and with Tesla, the narrative

0:09:17.760 --> 0:09:20.480
<v Speaker 1>can lead you to different places. I mean, I'll give

0:09:20.520 --> 0:09:22.920
<v Speaker 1>you I'll give you an example. When I first valued

0:09:22.960 --> 0:09:25.120
<v Speaker 1>Tesla was about three years ago. I value them as

0:09:25.160 --> 0:09:28.480
<v Speaker 1>a luxury automobile company. I gave them the margins of

0:09:28.559 --> 0:09:31.360
<v Speaker 1>luxury automobile companies, and I gave them the growth you

0:09:31.400 --> 0:09:33.199
<v Speaker 1>can get as a luxury automobile company. Came up with

0:09:33.240 --> 0:09:36.599
<v Speaker 1>about a hundred dollars per share. Okay, the problem with

0:09:36.679 --> 0:09:39.640
<v Speaker 1>Tesla is you've got, for lack of a better word,

0:09:39.640 --> 0:09:43.440
<v Speaker 1>a delusional CEO who kind of keeps expanding the story

0:09:43.520 --> 0:09:45.640
<v Speaker 1>on you. Right because in a sense, today he's an

0:09:45.679 --> 0:09:48.240
<v Speaker 1>automobile company. Tomorrow is a clean energy company. They have

0:09:48.320 --> 0:09:51.480
<v Speaker 1>tomorrow god only knows where. So the story for Tesla

0:09:51.679 --> 0:09:54.480
<v Speaker 1>I call it the ultimate story stock, which is people

0:09:54.520 --> 0:09:57.000
<v Speaker 1>have stopped talking about numbers. The numbers really, and that's

0:09:57.000 --> 0:10:00.240
<v Speaker 1>why Tesla stock price can take all this punish mint

0:10:00.280 --> 0:10:03.040
<v Speaker 1>of deliveries not being on time. It's still hang in

0:10:03.040 --> 0:10:05.520
<v Speaker 1>there because the people who invest in Tesla have bought

0:10:05.600 --> 0:10:11.160
<v Speaker 1>into Elon Musk's story. Is there an Elon Musk premium?

0:10:11.200 --> 0:10:15.800
<v Speaker 1>I think there's an Elon Musk fandom, which essentially Tesla

0:10:15.880 --> 0:10:19.280
<v Speaker 1>investors are not investors like other companies. They don't invest

0:10:19.320 --> 0:10:21.800
<v Speaker 1>in the company for the earnings that cash flows. They're

0:10:21.800 --> 0:10:25.640
<v Speaker 1>not worried about delivery schedules not being met. They're buying

0:10:25.720 --> 0:10:28.480
<v Speaker 1>the Elon Musk story. So there was There was just

0:10:28.600 --> 0:10:32.360
<v Speaker 1>an article out the other day, that Bloomberg release that showed,

0:10:33.200 --> 0:10:41.200
<v Speaker 1>amongst luxury automakers BMW, Audie, Mercedes and others plus Tesla

0:10:42.080 --> 0:10:45.920
<v Speaker 1>in terms of sheer volume last quarter, Tesla's beating everybody.

0:10:45.960 --> 0:10:48.160
<v Speaker 1>And is that a fair statement? And I think Tesla

0:10:48.160 --> 0:10:50.960
<v Speaker 1>has some incredible strengths, which is I mean, can you

0:10:50.960 --> 0:10:53.800
<v Speaker 1>imagine another automobile company telling the world that they're going

0:10:53.880 --> 0:10:55.520
<v Speaker 1>to come out with a new model in two thousand

0:10:55.600 --> 0:10:58.199
<v Speaker 1>and eighteen and four hundred thousand people signing up today

0:10:58.200 --> 0:11:01.079
<v Speaker 1>and putting down insane It's nobody else will do it.

0:11:01.160 --> 0:11:03.600
<v Speaker 1>So how about just the idea of someone saying, I

0:11:03.640 --> 0:11:06.560
<v Speaker 1>have an idea, let's make a new automobile company that

0:11:06.640 --> 0:11:09.680
<v Speaker 1>has hasn't been done? And how many And that's why

0:11:09.920 --> 0:11:12.440
<v Speaker 1>I feel frustrated with Tesla because at the core, it

0:11:12.559 --> 0:11:15.959
<v Speaker 1>has something very powerful, this connection to customers, that no

0:11:16.040 --> 0:11:19.560
<v Speaker 1>other automobile company does. And the reason I'm frustrated is

0:11:19.600 --> 0:11:23.400
<v Speaker 1>I want them to build this incredible, great automobile company.

0:11:23.440 --> 0:11:26.000
<v Speaker 1>I want focus here. Instead, what do I get? I

0:11:26.040 --> 0:11:28.199
<v Speaker 1>get them acquiring Solar City and telling me that they're

0:11:28.200 --> 0:11:32.440
<v Speaker 1>building battery panels and solar power. Well, you're gonna buy

0:11:32.440 --> 0:11:35.160
<v Speaker 1>a battery pack, put in your garage, put the solar

0:11:35.160 --> 0:11:38.479
<v Speaker 1>cells on your roof, and now we've made you completely

0:11:38.520 --> 0:11:41.760
<v Speaker 1>independent off the grid. Look what we've done for you

0:11:41.800 --> 0:11:45.680
<v Speaker 1>as an automobile purchaser. And in a sense, I think,

0:11:45.720 --> 0:11:48.400
<v Speaker 1>once you've established yourself as an automobile company, maybe you

0:11:48.440 --> 0:11:50.199
<v Speaker 1>want to do this, But already you have enough on

0:11:50.280 --> 0:11:52.240
<v Speaker 1>your plate. Why would you want to load up more

0:11:52.360 --> 0:11:55.920
<v Speaker 1>stuff on your plate? Especially because I think Solar City

0:11:56.160 --> 0:11:59.280
<v Speaker 1>is a commodity in a commodity business with a huge

0:11:59.280 --> 0:12:01.720
<v Speaker 1>amount of dead So it's almost like you're adding three

0:12:01.760 --> 0:12:05.800
<v Speaker 1>distractions to a company that already has so much to

0:12:05.880 --> 0:12:08.960
<v Speaker 1>focus on. If I were Testla, I'd looking at getting

0:12:08.960 --> 0:12:11.760
<v Speaker 1>the Tesla three delivered on time, because that's going to

0:12:11.840 --> 0:12:14.440
<v Speaker 1>be disastrous. If you've got four hundred thousand people expecting

0:12:14.480 --> 0:12:16.560
<v Speaker 1>the car to be delivered in two thousand and eighteen,

0:12:16.920 --> 0:12:19.840
<v Speaker 1>and that doesn't get and this is this is the

0:12:19.920 --> 0:12:25.400
<v Speaker 1>low cost under forty dollars exactly every person all electric automobile,

0:12:26.000 --> 0:12:30.120
<v Speaker 1>which ironically General Motors um turns out to be ahead

0:12:30.120 --> 0:12:32.920
<v Speaker 1>of Tesla with Chevy with their their first they had

0:12:32.960 --> 0:12:35.559
<v Speaker 1>the vaults and now they have the vaults, They're actually

0:12:35.559 --> 0:12:38.559
<v Speaker 1>gonna beat Tesla the market. Yeah, but I think Tesla

0:12:38.600 --> 0:12:41.920
<v Speaker 1>will win that game simply because General Motors wants to

0:12:41.920 --> 0:12:44.480
<v Speaker 1>go after the fifteen maybe the lowest. I mean a

0:12:44.559 --> 0:12:48.680
<v Speaker 1>Tesla will never be a fully mass market automobile company

0:12:48.840 --> 0:12:51.760
<v Speaker 1>because I think in a sense they will always trade

0:12:51.760 --> 0:12:54.800
<v Speaker 1>at a premium over a GM car. So I think

0:12:54.840 --> 0:12:57.280
<v Speaker 1>they will have that price premium and a profit margin.

0:12:57.679 --> 0:13:01.480
<v Speaker 1>But all of that presupposes that they make the trains

0:13:01.559 --> 0:13:04.560
<v Speaker 1>run on time. I could talk about Tesla all day.

0:13:04.960 --> 0:13:09.120
<v Speaker 1>Will come back to that. Let's talk about Amazon. I

0:13:09.160 --> 0:13:13.840
<v Speaker 1>mentioned there was a uh euron Musk premium. Is there

0:13:13.880 --> 0:13:17.400
<v Speaker 1>a Jeff Bezos premium at Amazon? And I think it's deserved.

0:13:17.440 --> 0:13:19.679
<v Speaker 1>I mean, Amazon has been one of my pet obsessions

0:13:19.679 --> 0:13:21.880
<v Speaker 1>for twenty years. It's a company that I valued first

0:13:21.880 --> 0:13:25.080
<v Speaker 1>in seven and I valued pretty much every year since.

0:13:25.440 --> 0:13:27.679
<v Speaker 1>I tell people I bought Amazon four times and I've

0:13:27.679 --> 0:13:29.760
<v Speaker 1>sold Amazon four times, which kind of tells you where

0:13:29.760 --> 0:13:31.800
<v Speaker 1>I am with Amazon, Right. Have you regretted all of

0:13:31.800 --> 0:13:34.280
<v Speaker 1>those cells? No, because I think in a sense, I

0:13:34.280 --> 0:13:36.439
<v Speaker 1>I have to stay true to my faith, which is

0:13:36.480 --> 0:13:39.040
<v Speaker 1>I buy companies because I think, like an investor, the

0:13:39.080 --> 0:13:41.679
<v Speaker 1>price has to be less than the value. Amazon is

0:13:41.679 --> 0:13:43.600
<v Speaker 1>a company where the price can take off and go

0:13:43.760 --> 0:13:47.240
<v Speaker 1>well ahead of value for extended stretches for years. And

0:13:47.280 --> 0:13:49.440
<v Speaker 1>I think part of the reason I think people are

0:13:49.480 --> 0:13:52.040
<v Speaker 1>willing to pay a premium is I've never seen a

0:13:52.080 --> 0:13:55.600
<v Speaker 1>company where a CEO has been more consistent about his narrative.

0:13:55.600 --> 0:13:58.600
<v Speaker 1>In fact, he's the the anti Elon Musk. Right. If

0:13:58.600 --> 0:14:00.920
<v Speaker 1>you go back to and then you read the letter

0:14:00.960 --> 0:14:03.400
<v Speaker 1>that Amazon said to I don't know whether you've ever

0:14:03.440 --> 0:14:06.000
<v Speaker 1>read that Jeff Bezos. There's a great letter that's online

0:14:06.120 --> 0:14:09.040
<v Speaker 1>on what he told people he would do as a company,

0:14:09.400 --> 0:14:12.600
<v Speaker 1>and he's done it, and he's stayed exactly true to

0:14:12.640 --> 0:14:16.040
<v Speaker 1>the script. There have been a handful of pivots, but

0:14:16.200 --> 0:14:20.640
<v Speaker 1>he's pretty much been fairly consist Their minor shifts, of course,

0:14:20.920 --> 0:14:24.600
<v Speaker 1>course changes, not wholesale reversals in any ways. In the fact,

0:14:24.680 --> 0:14:27.320
<v Speaker 1>I describe Amazon as a field of dreams company, right,

0:14:27.320 --> 0:14:31.400
<v Speaker 1>which is if we is what the story he told is,

0:14:31.960 --> 0:14:34.200
<v Speaker 1>if we build it, they will come. Basically said, we're

0:14:34.200 --> 0:14:36.480
<v Speaker 1>gonna go after revenues first, We're not going to worry

0:14:36.520 --> 0:14:40.360
<v Speaker 1>about profits, and once we build the revenues, the profits

0:14:40.400 --> 0:14:42.560
<v Speaker 1>will come. And he stayed true not just to that

0:14:42.640 --> 0:14:44.720
<v Speaker 1>story in terms of what he said, but how he acts.

0:14:45.080 --> 0:14:47.560
<v Speaker 1>You look at the Kindle, you look at it basically

0:14:47.600 --> 0:14:50.320
<v Speaker 1>go product by product. So yeah, let's go through. You

0:14:50.360 --> 0:14:54.360
<v Speaker 1>have the Kindle, you have the Amazon Fires, Amazon Tia,

0:14:54.600 --> 0:14:59.240
<v Speaker 1>Amazon Prime. Right. Basically, Amazon Prime is I started Amazon

0:14:59.280 --> 0:15:01.080
<v Speaker 1>Prime a few years years ago. I was late to

0:15:01.120 --> 0:15:05.440
<v Speaker 1>the party, and it's just become indispensable. Amazon Music, Amazon Video,

0:15:05.440 --> 0:15:08.400
<v Speaker 1>and what they share in common is Amazon sells every

0:15:08.400 --> 0:15:11.080
<v Speaker 1>one of those products at cost or below. They're open

0:15:11.120 --> 0:15:14.040
<v Speaker 1>about it. Amazon Prime they charge you go to the

0:15:14.160 --> 0:15:16.200
<v Speaker 1>ten K, they actually tell you how much it was.

0:15:19.000 --> 0:15:21.440
<v Speaker 1>They give you the cost or how much it costs

0:15:21.480 --> 0:15:24.840
<v Speaker 1>them to service. It's about three. Basically they're saying, look,

0:15:24.840 --> 0:15:28.080
<v Speaker 1>why's subsidizing it, But they say it's okay because if

0:15:28.080 --> 0:15:31.400
<v Speaker 1>we build it, they'll come. Your colleague, an n y

0:15:31.480 --> 0:15:35.640
<v Speaker 1>U professor Galloway, has been suggesting Amazon should go out

0:15:35.680 --> 0:15:38.680
<v Speaker 1>and buy the US Postal Service. Of course, they're shipping

0:15:38.720 --> 0:15:41.920
<v Speaker 1>costs are now in the billions, soon to be tens

0:15:41.920 --> 0:15:44.320
<v Speaker 1>of billions of dollars, and you know whatever our FedEx

0:15:44.360 --> 0:15:48.080
<v Speaker 1>and UPS. I'd be terrified where where Amazon is going next? Right,

0:15:48.320 --> 0:15:52.280
<v Speaker 1>because Amazon has this insane capacity to destroy almost every

0:15:52.440 --> 0:15:55.160
<v Speaker 1>business for everybody else in the business. Now it's done

0:15:55.200 --> 0:15:57.960
<v Speaker 1>in the retail business already. The reason I will I

0:15:58.000 --> 0:16:01.560
<v Speaker 1>will be hesitant to buy Netflix X is because Amazon

0:16:01.720 --> 0:16:04.920
<v Speaker 1>is entering big time into that business. Ups and FedEx.

0:16:04.960 --> 0:16:06.920
<v Speaker 1>You look at Amazon entering the business because here's what

0:16:06.960 --> 0:16:09.320
<v Speaker 1>Amazon does with every business they go into. They sell

0:16:09.440 --> 0:16:13.040
<v Speaker 1>below cost, They challenge you to match up with them,

0:16:13.080 --> 0:16:16.520
<v Speaker 1>and they can keep going long after you dropped out

0:16:16.520 --> 0:16:19.760
<v Speaker 1>of the game. So I think that Scot's right. I mean,

0:16:19.800 --> 0:16:22.400
<v Speaker 1>I think that there is change coming to this business.

0:16:22.440 --> 0:16:25.800
<v Speaker 1>I'm Barry Ridhults. You're listening to Masters in Business on

0:16:25.840 --> 0:16:30.480
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Radio. My guest today is Aswath Damadarn. He is

0:16:30.520 --> 0:16:34.440
<v Speaker 1>a professor of finance at n y u's Stern School

0:16:34.440 --> 0:16:37.840
<v Speaker 1>of Business. He is also an author of numerous books,

0:16:37.880 --> 0:16:44.800
<v Speaker 1>including the Little Book Evaluation and Investment Philosophies, Successful Strategies

0:16:45.080 --> 0:16:48.800
<v Speaker 1>and the investors who made them work well. We were

0:16:48.840 --> 0:16:53.640
<v Speaker 1>previously talking about Tesla and Amazon, and but these are

0:16:53.640 --> 0:16:58.080
<v Speaker 1>public companies and the market gives us an approximate valuation

0:16:58.240 --> 0:17:01.480
<v Speaker 1>every day. Let's talk a little bit about private companies

0:17:01.520 --> 0:17:05.239
<v Speaker 1>where there isn't that public valuation. How do you go

0:17:05.320 --> 0:17:10.840
<v Speaker 1>about valuing a non traded private company. I think knowing

0:17:10.920 --> 0:17:13.000
<v Speaker 1>the prices a crutch, right, I mean, in a sense

0:17:13.000 --> 0:17:15.359
<v Speaker 1>you value should not be a function of knowing the price.

0:17:15.440 --> 0:17:18.080
<v Speaker 1>We use it in public companies often as a feedback

0:17:18.119 --> 0:17:20.600
<v Speaker 1>loop to make sure we aren't screwing up too badly.

0:17:21.119 --> 0:17:22.879
<v Speaker 1>So it's true when you value a private business you

0:17:22.880 --> 0:17:25.800
<v Speaker 1>look for that crutch. It's not dead, though it depends

0:17:25.800 --> 0:17:28.479
<v Speaker 1>on the private business. I valued over multiple times on

0:17:28.520 --> 0:17:30.960
<v Speaker 1>my blog. And there there is a pricing. It's a

0:17:31.040 --> 0:17:35.120
<v Speaker 1>VC pricing or a Saudi Sovereign Fund pricing of the company.

0:17:35.200 --> 0:17:37.560
<v Speaker 1>But is that a true pricing. I've I've heard people

0:17:37.640 --> 0:17:42.040
<v Speaker 1>make that argument. But what you're essentially doing is instead

0:17:42.040 --> 0:17:46.960
<v Speaker 1>of taking the collective wisdom of millions of investors. However, misguarded.

0:17:47.000 --> 0:17:49.679
<v Speaker 1>They may be at times you're lying on one person

0:17:49.800 --> 0:17:53.160
<v Speaker 1>rinning a check and that valuation. In fact, this is statistical.

0:17:53.200 --> 0:17:55.600
<v Speaker 1>It's a statistical problem. In the regular market, you have

0:17:55.680 --> 0:17:58.000
<v Speaker 1>hundreds and hundreds of people trying to assess the price

0:17:58.040 --> 0:18:00.600
<v Speaker 1>your one person. So all you need is one crazy person.

0:18:00.600 --> 0:18:02.800
<v Speaker 1>In fact, I wrote an article on VC pricing just

0:18:02.840 --> 0:18:06.000
<v Speaker 1>a couple of weeks ago on how VC pricing can

0:18:06.119 --> 0:18:08.480
<v Speaker 1>very quickly get out of control because all you need

0:18:08.520 --> 0:18:11.800
<v Speaker 1>is one crazy person to drive the pricing process out

0:18:11.800 --> 0:18:15.119
<v Speaker 1>of control. It's a feedback feedback, it's a feedback loops.

0:18:15.160 --> 0:18:17.920
<v Speaker 1>So but it's so that's that's part of the problem.

0:18:17.960 --> 0:18:20.120
<v Speaker 1>The other part is when a VC says I've got

0:18:20.160 --> 0:18:22.320
<v Speaker 1>five percent of a company and I paid fifty million,

0:18:22.400 --> 0:18:26.640
<v Speaker 1>you can't extrapolate that simply because vcs, when they invest

0:18:26.680 --> 0:18:29.320
<v Speaker 1>in the equity and a company often get these options

0:18:29.320 --> 0:18:31.880
<v Speaker 1>on the side right roundside protect so it's much more

0:18:32.000 --> 0:18:34.840
<v Speaker 1>so it's a much sweeter deal than exactly. So it's

0:18:34.840 --> 0:18:38.359
<v Speaker 1>a much more difficult place to get a price, but

0:18:38.440 --> 0:18:40.040
<v Speaker 1>at least you have a price. I think it gets

0:18:40.119 --> 0:18:42.840
<v Speaker 1>really tough if you ask me to value the hot

0:18:42.840 --> 0:18:46.160
<v Speaker 1>dog stand outside right, because I can value it. There

0:18:46.280 --> 0:18:49.280
<v Speaker 1>is no price I can compare it to, and it

0:18:49.359 --> 0:18:52.640
<v Speaker 1>makes me uncomfortable. It makes everybody uncomfortable not to have

0:18:52.720 --> 0:18:55.200
<v Speaker 1>something check, and that I think is a psychological problem

0:18:55.200 --> 0:18:57.920
<v Speaker 1>with valuing private businesses. You value the business, say, how

0:18:57.960 --> 0:19:01.800
<v Speaker 1>do I know I'm even within the ballpark? Right? You're stuck,

0:19:02.080 --> 0:19:04.960
<v Speaker 1>stuck relying on the metrics that exactly that you use

0:19:05.560 --> 0:19:08.040
<v Speaker 1>um And to make sure people understand, when you talk

0:19:08.080 --> 0:19:13.360
<v Speaker 1>about options, vcs very often have the right to reinvest

0:19:14.040 --> 0:19:18.920
<v Speaker 1>in a subsequent round at a same or discounted price

0:19:18.960 --> 0:19:21.960
<v Speaker 1>to whatever that next valuation is. When you say options,

0:19:21.960 --> 0:19:25.040
<v Speaker 1>it's not actually options, it's it's so they're getting this

0:19:25.320 --> 0:19:29.080
<v Speaker 1>upside advantage. You also get a downside protection sometimes, which

0:19:29.119 --> 0:19:33.280
<v Speaker 1>is the value decreases. They are allowed ways of escaping

0:19:33.320 --> 0:19:37.200
<v Speaker 1>from that. So vcs are pretty careful about putting those

0:19:37.200 --> 0:19:39.840
<v Speaker 1>options in, and founders go along because it allows them

0:19:39.880 --> 0:19:42.639
<v Speaker 1>them to inflate that because I'm sure because when the

0:19:42.720 --> 0:19:45.480
<v Speaker 1>journalist says, you know, so such in the Terranniss valued

0:19:45.480 --> 0:19:48.520
<v Speaker 1>at nine billion, they're often extrapolating from a VC investment.

0:19:48.560 --> 0:19:50.679
<v Speaker 1>So it serves the founder and the vcs to at

0:19:50.720 --> 0:19:54.480
<v Speaker 1>least put out the surface number that everybody is buying into.

0:19:54.680 --> 0:19:57.800
<v Speaker 1>So you mentioned Taranis, which was widely known as a

0:19:57.920 --> 0:20:01.160
<v Speaker 1>unicorn before the nar would have turned out to be

0:20:01.280 --> 0:20:04.400
<v Speaker 1>pretty much nonsense. And now the whole thing is sort

0:20:04.440 --> 0:20:08.880
<v Speaker 1>of mid collapse. We're watching it doing enron Um not

0:20:09.000 --> 0:20:13.280
<v Speaker 1>quite the same underlying issues as Enron had. But when

0:20:13.359 --> 0:20:17.240
<v Speaker 1>when the business school case is written on that, it's

0:20:17.240 --> 0:20:20.639
<v Speaker 1>going to be really interesting to see how people missed

0:20:20.640 --> 0:20:23.120
<v Speaker 1>all the warning signs. What about some of the other

0:20:23.200 --> 0:20:28.320
<v Speaker 1>Silicon Valley unicorns, the billion dollar private companies. You mentioned Uber?

0:20:28.960 --> 0:20:31.920
<v Speaker 1>What is uberworth? Well, according to the pricing, it's worth

0:20:31.920 --> 0:20:34.800
<v Speaker 1>over sixty billion. What do you think it's worth. I

0:20:34.840 --> 0:20:39.760
<v Speaker 1>think it's worth a number, and well it's my estimate

0:20:39.800 --> 0:20:41.840
<v Speaker 1>of the value. I'm not sure what the legit number

0:20:41.960 --> 0:20:44.520
<v Speaker 1>is because Uber is very I think the part of

0:20:44.520 --> 0:20:46.479
<v Speaker 1>the problem with Uber is we know what it can do.

0:20:46.640 --> 0:20:50.320
<v Speaker 1>It can grow revenues like crazy. It's in kind. I

0:20:50.359 --> 0:20:52.960
<v Speaker 1>go to cities where you would not think Uber would

0:20:52.960 --> 0:20:55.119
<v Speaker 1>be there, but it's there, such as give me a few.

0:20:55.480 --> 0:20:59.919
<v Speaker 1>I was in Moscow's Apolo, Jakarta and Delhi last summer.

0:21:00.160 --> 0:21:02.480
<v Speaker 1>Every single city, I asked the audience, how many of

0:21:02.560 --> 0:21:06.800
<v Speaker 1>you got your Uber and in every single city. To

0:21:06.880 --> 0:21:09.240
<v Speaker 1>the people in the in the session said they came

0:21:09.280 --> 0:21:13.399
<v Speaker 1>in by Uber. That's astonishing. They're that widespread. That's the

0:21:13.440 --> 0:21:16.560
<v Speaker 1>good news that they know how to grow because they

0:21:16.560 --> 0:21:18.679
<v Speaker 1>have a very low capital intensity model. To grow in

0:21:18.680 --> 0:21:20.239
<v Speaker 1>the city, all they need to do is hire a guy,

0:21:20.280 --> 0:21:22.080
<v Speaker 1>put them in a motel room, ask them to get

0:21:22.119 --> 0:21:24.800
<v Speaker 1>some drivers together. Because they don't own the cars, they

0:21:24.800 --> 0:21:27.480
<v Speaker 1>don't have the driver, they don't the drivers don't work

0:21:27.480 --> 0:21:29.720
<v Speaker 1>for them. The problem for Ruber is they have a

0:21:29.760 --> 0:21:32.640
<v Speaker 1>business model which is indefensible. What I mean by that

0:21:33.000 --> 0:21:35.240
<v Speaker 1>is they can grow revenues, but they can't make money

0:21:35.960 --> 0:21:39.680
<v Speaker 1>right because entry is easy. So that what was happening.

0:21:39.720 --> 0:21:42.120
<v Speaker 1>What's happening in the U S and it's concerning every

0:21:42.160 --> 0:21:45.200
<v Speaker 1>right sharing company is Lift offers Uber drivers two thousand

0:21:45.240 --> 0:21:50.119
<v Speaker 1>dollars to switch to lift. Uber offers Lift and to

0:21:50.200 --> 0:21:53.120
<v Speaker 1>make them exclusive, so they pay them money. So basically

0:21:53.160 --> 0:21:56.399
<v Speaker 1>what's happening is the expenses are way out of control.

0:21:56.440 --> 0:22:00.199
<v Speaker 1>So well, revenues are doubling, costs are tripling. So the

0:22:00.200 --> 0:22:02.560
<v Speaker 1>way I described it, you've got to get an exit

0:22:02.640 --> 0:22:04.000
<v Speaker 1>from this, but you've got to come up with the

0:22:04.240 --> 0:22:07.359
<v Speaker 1>defensible business. You've got increased stickiness, and much of what

0:22:07.440 --> 0:22:09.600
<v Speaker 1>you're seeing in the right sharing space in the last

0:22:09.680 --> 0:22:11.879
<v Speaker 1>year is how to increase stickiness. Staking is in the

0:22:11.880 --> 0:22:15.119
<v Speaker 1>sense of keeping drivers attached to you, keeping customers with you.

0:22:15.280 --> 0:22:18.679
<v Speaker 1>I'm very results you're listening to Masters in Business on

0:22:18.760 --> 0:22:23.879
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Radio. My guest today is Professor Aswat Damadarn. He

0:22:24.040 --> 0:22:26.639
<v Speaker 1>is of n y U Stern School of Business and

0:22:26.680 --> 0:22:31.320
<v Speaker 1>he is an expert in valuing companies, both private and public.

0:22:32.000 --> 0:22:35.159
<v Speaker 1>Let's let's talk a little bit about valuing stocks and

0:22:35.200 --> 0:22:39.919
<v Speaker 1>the market. Generally. We've if you've been an investor for

0:22:39.960 --> 0:22:43.880
<v Speaker 1>any length of time, you may have noticed that valuations

0:22:44.119 --> 0:22:48.880
<v Speaker 1>in general have been creeping up over the years. Not

0:22:49.040 --> 0:22:52.879
<v Speaker 1>just things are a little pricey today, but generally things

0:22:52.920 --> 0:22:56.240
<v Speaker 1>have gone up in price in the stock market. And

0:22:56.280 --> 0:22:59.840
<v Speaker 1>there are a number of different theories as to why. First,

0:23:00.040 --> 0:23:04.040
<v Speaker 1>is that a fair valuation. Two stocks generally look pricier

0:23:04.480 --> 0:23:07.920
<v Speaker 1>this decade, in last decade than five, six, seven decades.

0:23:08.119 --> 0:23:10.720
<v Speaker 1>It's not debatable, right, the p ratios are up, capes

0:23:10.760 --> 0:23:13.320
<v Speaker 1>are up, price to book ray shows up. You take

0:23:13.359 --> 0:23:15.520
<v Speaker 1>any multiple there at high but hears the way to

0:23:15.560 --> 0:23:17.919
<v Speaker 1>think about it investing is not an absolute game. You

0:23:17.960 --> 0:23:20.080
<v Speaker 1>say I invest or not. It's a relative game. So

0:23:20.119 --> 0:23:22.480
<v Speaker 1>if you're not going to invest in stocks, the question

0:23:22.520 --> 0:23:24.840
<v Speaker 1>is ware you can invest instead, And what do you

0:23:24.880 --> 0:23:27.800
<v Speaker 1>have is a game that has fundamentally changed on that dimension.

0:23:28.119 --> 0:23:30.280
<v Speaker 1>In two thousand and seven, if you didn't invest in stocks,

0:23:30.280 --> 0:23:31.760
<v Speaker 1>you might have put your money in T bonds and

0:23:31.800 --> 0:23:34.639
<v Speaker 1>made four percent in corporate bonds and made five and

0:23:34.640 --> 0:23:37.480
<v Speaker 1>a half to six percent. But today you don't invest

0:23:37.520 --> 0:23:39.399
<v Speaker 1>in stocks. You invest in T bonds you make one

0:23:39.440 --> 0:23:42.080
<v Speaker 1>point five percent, or corporate bonds and make two and

0:23:42.080 --> 0:23:46.240
<v Speaker 1>a half percent. Stocks look expensive relative to their own industry,

0:23:46.280 --> 0:23:48.640
<v Speaker 1>but they don't look expensive relative to what my other

0:23:48.760 --> 0:23:50.960
<v Speaker 1>choices are. So in other words, you can't just look

0:23:51.000 --> 0:23:55.720
<v Speaker 1>at a single metric in isolation like priceto earnings ratio

0:23:55.840 --> 0:23:58.560
<v Speaker 1>and say, hey stocks or cheaper stocks. If it was

0:23:58.600 --> 0:24:00.560
<v Speaker 1>that simple, you buy it when the pe was low,

0:24:00.640 --> 0:24:02.919
<v Speaker 1>you sell when the pus high, and then you get

0:24:03.280 --> 0:24:07.399
<v Speaker 1>that's not That's been my pet peeve with especially chilla,

0:24:07.560 --> 0:24:10.280
<v Speaker 1>the chilla cape right, because it's become this single metric,

0:24:10.320 --> 0:24:13.000
<v Speaker 1>it's a nobel price when they're pushing it. Therefore, it

0:24:13.160 --> 0:24:16.159
<v Speaker 1>might so, first if you think about the cape, and

0:24:16.200 --> 0:24:18.600
<v Speaker 1>you look at the history. It goes back to seventy one,

0:24:18.640 --> 0:24:21.600
<v Speaker 1>and you can show all kinds of relationships in cape

0:24:21.640 --> 0:24:25.360
<v Speaker 1>now and returns in the future, So it's and there

0:24:25.359 --> 0:24:29.119
<v Speaker 1>again the statistics are incontestable, which is if you have

0:24:29.480 --> 0:24:32.359
<v Speaker 1>if the CAPE is high now, returns in the future

0:24:32.359 --> 0:24:35.520
<v Speaker 1>I have tended to be lower. So people then say, okay,

0:24:35.560 --> 0:24:37.280
<v Speaker 1>that means you should be out of stocks now because

0:24:37.320 --> 0:24:39.280
<v Speaker 1>the CAPE is at twenty six or twenty seven or

0:24:39.280 --> 0:24:42.560
<v Speaker 1>twenty depending on how you compute it. But that assumes

0:24:42.640 --> 0:24:45.640
<v Speaker 1>that the underlying alternative, which is what you can make

0:24:45.680 --> 0:24:49.160
<v Speaker 1>if you don't invest in stocks, hasn't changed, and it has.

0:24:49.920 --> 0:24:53.640
<v Speaker 1>Someone used the number not too long ago that if

0:24:53.680 --> 0:24:57.760
<v Speaker 1>you were out of stocks when the cape was um,

0:24:57.800 --> 0:25:00.639
<v Speaker 1>either someone elevated or very very of it over the

0:25:00.640 --> 0:25:05.399
<v Speaker 1>past thirty years, you would have missed of the stock rally.

0:25:05.480 --> 0:25:08.320
<v Speaker 1>So you can't look at it in isolation. In fact,

0:25:08.320 --> 0:25:10.520
<v Speaker 1>what I did was I took Schiller's own numbers. Let's

0:25:10.560 --> 0:25:13.240
<v Speaker 1>to be accused of using some variant. I took Schiller's

0:25:13.280 --> 0:25:16.399
<v Speaker 1>own numbers that go back to eighteen seventy one, and

0:25:16.400 --> 0:25:18.280
<v Speaker 1>I put in an Excel spreadsheet which is on my

0:25:18.320 --> 0:25:24.840
<v Speaker 1>blog where I try different market timing strategies based on Cape. Like,

0:25:24.960 --> 0:25:27.520
<v Speaker 1>for instance, I said, what would happen if every time

0:25:27.560 --> 0:25:31.640
<v Speaker 1>the CAPE was twenty above the median from the previous

0:25:31.680 --> 0:25:35.240
<v Speaker 1>fifty years, I sold stocks and the CAPE was twenty five?

0:25:35.240 --> 0:25:37.240
<v Speaker 1>Because I mean, ultimately, if you want me to time

0:25:37.240 --> 0:25:40.240
<v Speaker 1>markets based on strips, and then I tried. I could

0:25:40.240 --> 0:25:44.119
<v Speaker 1>not find a single timing strategy over the last fifty

0:25:44.200 --> 0:25:48.200
<v Speaker 1>years where I could use Cape to make money. I

0:25:48.280 --> 0:25:51.240
<v Speaker 1>tell people correlations are not cash because all too often

0:25:51.240 --> 0:25:53.040
<v Speaker 1>when people tell them to send me the stuff on Cape,

0:25:53.040 --> 0:25:55.199
<v Speaker 1>it's look at the correlation in CAPE and future returns.

0:25:55.200 --> 0:25:56.920
<v Speaker 1>And I said, I've never been able to make money

0:25:56.920 --> 0:26:00.000
<v Speaker 1>in correlations. Tell me how I used this to make money,

0:26:00.080 --> 0:26:03.199
<v Speaker 1>And at least based on the testing I did, I

0:26:03.200 --> 0:26:06.199
<v Speaker 1>couldn't find a single way you could use Cape to

0:26:06.359 --> 0:26:08.919
<v Speaker 1>make money from timing. Monk, we just just look at

0:26:08.960 --> 0:26:10.840
<v Speaker 1>the past decade. If you would have used Cape, you

0:26:10.880 --> 0:26:13.840
<v Speaker 1>would have sat in in a pretty nice bond rally,

0:26:13.880 --> 0:26:16.960
<v Speaker 1>but you would have missed a two plus percent equity rally.

0:26:16.960 --> 0:26:20.480
<v Speaker 1>It would have been would have been pretty pretty off. Um. So,

0:26:20.480 --> 0:26:23.040
<v Speaker 1>so let's talk about a couple of people have some

0:26:23.080 --> 0:26:26.320
<v Speaker 1>theories I think are interesting. Cliff Fastness of a qu

0:26:26.520 --> 0:26:30.160
<v Speaker 1>R said, it used to be very expensive to buy stocks.

0:26:30.640 --> 0:26:32.760
<v Speaker 1>You didn't have indexes, you didn't have a lot of

0:26:32.800 --> 0:26:37.840
<v Speaker 1>things that made it friction lists and and efficient. It

0:26:38.000 --> 0:26:40.760
<v Speaker 1>was time consuming, expensive, and you had to be paid.

0:26:41.280 --> 0:26:43.800
<v Speaker 1>Investors had to be paid or reasonable ry to return

0:26:44.240 --> 0:26:48.600
<v Speaker 1>to compensate for that initial friction. And most of those frictions,

0:26:48.600 --> 0:26:51.480
<v Speaker 1>according to Cliff, have gone away. Is that a fair

0:26:51.880 --> 0:26:53.639
<v Speaker 1>way to look at it? I don't buy it. I mean,

0:26:53.800 --> 0:26:56.080
<v Speaker 1>I don't think there are enough, there were ever enough

0:26:56.080 --> 0:26:59.000
<v Speaker 1>frictions in this game to explain anything but a very

0:26:59.000 --> 0:27:01.920
<v Speaker 1>small prime because as transactions costs, argument you can always

0:27:01.920 --> 0:27:05.040
<v Speaker 1>make about value that what you pay today is a

0:27:05.080 --> 0:27:09.240
<v Speaker 1>function of expected future transactions. Where I'm using transactions costs broadly,

0:27:09.840 --> 0:27:11.399
<v Speaker 1>and it's always been the case that have been in

0:27:11.440 --> 0:27:14.160
<v Speaker 1>a less liquid market, you're willing to pay less upfront

0:27:14.280 --> 0:27:17.520
<v Speaker 1>simply because you worry about in the US market, And

0:27:17.720 --> 0:27:20.160
<v Speaker 1>I mean, unless you're going back to nineteen twenty five

0:27:20.240 --> 0:27:23.680
<v Speaker 1>or five, for the last fifty years, I've pretty much

0:27:23.760 --> 0:27:27.159
<v Speaker 1>had this option of investing in index one's. So the

0:27:27.200 --> 0:27:29.159
<v Speaker 1>Van Guard five index one goes back to what the

0:27:29.240 --> 0:27:32.920
<v Speaker 1>nineteen seventy seventy. So I've always had that option. I've

0:27:33.000 --> 0:27:35.879
<v Speaker 1>chosen not to use the option. And transactions cost starting

0:27:35.880 --> 0:27:38.920
<v Speaker 1>in the eighties started sliding very very quick, so it's

0:27:38.920 --> 0:27:41.680
<v Speaker 1>almost it's not like we've gone from seven percent bid

0:27:41.680 --> 0:27:45.359
<v Speaker 1>ask spreads to half a percent. So if in fact,

0:27:45.359 --> 0:27:48.240
<v Speaker 1>there's a very simple, testable way you could test a

0:27:48.240 --> 0:27:51.679
<v Speaker 1>cliff strategy, which is to break companies down into large

0:27:51.720 --> 0:27:54.680
<v Speaker 1>market gap all the way down to the least traded stocks.

0:27:54.920 --> 0:27:57.560
<v Speaker 1>And if he's right, the least traded stocks shouldn't mean

0:27:57.600 --> 0:28:00.480
<v Speaker 1>the ones that went up the most. The that's where

0:28:00.480 --> 0:28:03.040
<v Speaker 1>they so the most liquid stocks you should actually see

0:28:03.200 --> 0:28:07.200
<v Speaker 1>underperforming the least liquid stocks. If the argument for prices

0:28:07.240 --> 0:28:09.800
<v Speaker 1>going up was this, hey, transactions costs have gone down.

0:28:09.960 --> 0:28:13.080
<v Speaker 1>What about the concept that in the old days to

0:28:13.119 --> 0:28:15.919
<v Speaker 1>build a company you needed a lot of capital, a

0:28:15.920 --> 0:28:20.400
<v Speaker 1>lot of steel, building, staffing. When you look at Facebook's

0:28:20.520 --> 0:28:25.439
<v Speaker 1>purchase of WhatsApp, of WhatsApp, or or go through the

0:28:25.440 --> 0:28:29.280
<v Speaker 1>whole list Instagram, go through, they're they're making these purchases

0:28:29.800 --> 0:28:33.359
<v Speaker 1>small little companies run by four or five people. You

0:28:33.359 --> 0:28:37.560
<v Speaker 1>don't even need the servers and the know how you

0:28:37.640 --> 0:28:40.760
<v Speaker 1>used to ten twenty years ago. It's all in the cloud,

0:28:40.800 --> 0:28:43.600
<v Speaker 1>it's all modular. Those sort of things are readily available.

0:28:44.280 --> 0:28:47.840
<v Speaker 1>So companies today are so much require so much less capital,

0:28:47.880 --> 0:28:51.800
<v Speaker 1>so much less staffing. They deserve a higher multiple because

0:28:51.960 --> 0:28:55.160
<v Speaker 1>the cost structure is so cheap. It's a mixed blessing. Right.

0:28:55.160 --> 0:28:57.920
<v Speaker 1>Because you can grow really fast, you can also shrink

0:28:57.960 --> 0:29:00.040
<v Speaker 1>really fast. Right, Because I have this stare of a

0:29:00.200 --> 0:29:03.920
<v Speaker 1>life cycles infrastructure companies, the old time infrastructure companies. It

0:29:04.000 --> 0:29:06.840
<v Speaker 1>did take you decades to build up the company. But

0:29:06.960 --> 0:29:09.280
<v Speaker 1>once you've built up the company, you could live off

0:29:09.320 --> 0:29:13.120
<v Speaker 1>the fat for a really long time exactly, and you

0:29:13.160 --> 0:29:15.920
<v Speaker 1>could make money for thirty forty fifty years before the

0:29:15.960 --> 0:29:19.280
<v Speaker 1>decline set in. And the decline was slow because the

0:29:19.280 --> 0:29:22.280
<v Speaker 1>same forces that took you a long time to grow

0:29:22.320 --> 0:29:25.880
<v Speaker 1>are now working in your favor as you decline. In contrast,

0:29:26.000 --> 0:29:29.120
<v Speaker 1>you take a tech company. I described tech companies as

0:29:29.160 --> 0:29:32.200
<v Speaker 1>aging in dog years like a tenure Tech companies like

0:29:32.240 --> 0:29:34.800
<v Speaker 1>a seventy year infrastructure company. You can grow really fast

0:29:34.840 --> 0:29:36.880
<v Speaker 1>because as you pointed out, it doesn't require the kind

0:29:36.880 --> 0:29:39.800
<v Speaker 1>of capital investment you did as as an old time

0:29:39.840 --> 0:29:42.400
<v Speaker 1>infrastructure company. But it also means you don't get to

0:29:42.680 --> 0:29:44.640
<v Speaker 1>enjoy the fat for very long. I mean, I think

0:29:44.680 --> 0:29:47.480
<v Speaker 1>of BlackBerry in two thousand and six, it was a star.

0:29:48.600 --> 0:29:51.960
<v Speaker 1>By two thousand and nine it was dead man walking. Basically,

0:29:51.960 --> 0:29:54.120
<v Speaker 1>it's a company that went to where. And that's I

0:29:54.200 --> 0:29:56.760
<v Speaker 1>think when you think about valuation, is valuing across a

0:29:56.800 --> 0:29:59.400
<v Speaker 1>life cycle. I'm not sure that the value of a

0:29:59.440 --> 0:30:02.440
<v Speaker 1>twenty year old life cycle tech company is going to

0:30:02.480 --> 0:30:05.400
<v Speaker 1>be higher than the value of a hundred year infrastructure company,

0:30:05.480 --> 0:30:08.600
<v Speaker 1>because I've got two valued across the cycle, and the

0:30:08.600 --> 0:30:12.719
<v Speaker 1>tech companies are probably more susceptible exact to rapid change

0:30:12.840 --> 0:30:17.280
<v Speaker 1>than someone who's making dishwashing soap or something exactly. That's

0:30:17.320 --> 0:30:19.360
<v Speaker 1>that's a very different So let's let's talk about some

0:30:19.440 --> 0:30:22.840
<v Speaker 1>of your favorite valuation techniques. What do you think is

0:30:22.880 --> 0:30:28.280
<v Speaker 1>the most informative measure of a company's valuation. I ultimately

0:30:28.320 --> 0:30:31.080
<v Speaker 1>am a believer that companies should be price based on

0:30:31.160 --> 0:30:33.440
<v Speaker 1>three things. One is their cash flows. The second is

0:30:33.480 --> 0:30:35.480
<v Speaker 1>the value of their growth, not growth per se, but

0:30:35.520 --> 0:30:37.479
<v Speaker 1>how much it's costing them to get the growth and

0:30:38.280 --> 0:30:41.760
<v Speaker 1>the expensive growth, not just the growth percentage. So I

0:30:41.800 --> 0:30:43.560
<v Speaker 1>bring in both sides. Growth has a good side. It

0:30:43.600 --> 0:30:45.840
<v Speaker 1>makes my revenues grow faster. Growth has a bad side.

0:30:45.880 --> 0:30:47.880
<v Speaker 1>I've got to set aside earnings to cover the growth.

0:30:47.880 --> 0:30:50.320
<v Speaker 1>The net effect is what drives the value of growth.

0:30:51.760 --> 0:30:56.120
<v Speaker 1>Companies globally destroy value as they grow, destroy destroy value

0:30:56.120 --> 0:30:58.760
<v Speaker 1>as it grow. It's one of the scariest statistics on growth.

0:30:59.080 --> 0:31:00.880
<v Speaker 1>So always a mixed fee things when the company says

0:31:00.920 --> 0:31:04.719
<v Speaker 1>we're going to grow, because my first reaction is exactly

0:31:05.160 --> 0:31:06.480
<v Speaker 1>so that I look at the value growth and I

0:31:06.520 --> 0:31:09.960
<v Speaker 1>look at risk. So when I do a discounted Casulow valuation,

0:31:10.000 --> 0:31:11.760
<v Speaker 1>people think of it as some kind of new model.

0:31:11.880 --> 0:31:14.920
<v Speaker 1>People have always valued businesses based on cash flow growth

0:31:14.960 --> 0:31:17.240
<v Speaker 1>at risk. I'm sure there's a Venetian glassmaker in the

0:31:17.280 --> 0:31:19.760
<v Speaker 1>four hundreds, and he might not have gone through a

0:31:19.840 --> 0:31:22.240
<v Speaker 1>d c of model, but I'm sure he asked questions about, hey,

0:31:22.240 --> 0:31:24.160
<v Speaker 1>what are your cash loss He knew better than to

0:31:24.240 --> 0:31:28.240
<v Speaker 1>trust your accounting numbers. Even then, he talked about growth

0:31:28.240 --> 0:31:30.560
<v Speaker 1>in the cost of growth, and he talked about risks.

0:31:30.640 --> 0:31:33.640
<v Speaker 1>So to me, when I value a company, I've got

0:31:33.680 --> 0:31:36.440
<v Speaker 1>to bring those into what I end up with as

0:31:36.480 --> 0:31:38.640
<v Speaker 1>a as a number for the company. What's what's the

0:31:38.680 --> 0:31:41.920
<v Speaker 1>third factor? It's risks, So it's cash flows, growth, the value, growth,

0:31:41.920 --> 0:31:44.800
<v Speaker 1>and risk. So those three factors play out no matter

0:31:44.880 --> 0:31:48.240
<v Speaker 1>how complicated my discounted. That's the end game that I'm

0:31:48.280 --> 0:31:50.320
<v Speaker 1>looking at. So what do you think are the most

0:31:50.440 --> 0:31:57.520
<v Speaker 1>overrated valuation metrics? I think accounting valuation to me is pointless, right,

0:31:57.560 --> 0:32:00.920
<v Speaker 1>So I mean book value or i've I see price,

0:32:01.000 --> 0:32:03.760
<v Speaker 1>the book gets tossed out. All that's exactly now. And

0:32:03.800 --> 0:32:05.800
<v Speaker 1>to me, there's that two things on book value. The

0:32:05.840 --> 0:32:08.240
<v Speaker 1>reason people get so caught up with book values first

0:32:08.280 --> 0:32:10.920
<v Speaker 1>they think that it actually is a measure of what

0:32:10.960 --> 0:32:13.280
<v Speaker 1>you would get if you liquidate the company today, which

0:32:13.320 --> 0:32:17.000
<v Speaker 1>is absolutely absurd. So what about tobin Que ratio? And

0:32:17.080 --> 0:32:19.640
<v Speaker 1>I think it's the same lazy approach, right. The tobanqueue

0:32:19.680 --> 0:32:23.080
<v Speaker 1>approach was developed for a different era with a lot

0:32:23.120 --> 0:32:27.800
<v Speaker 1>of manufacturing company, heavy heavy heavy manufacturing companies where perhaps

0:32:27.840 --> 0:32:30.080
<v Speaker 1>they had factories, they had machinery, They are things that

0:32:30.080 --> 0:32:33.760
<v Speaker 1>could be liquidated in bankrupts exactly. So again there's there's

0:32:33.800 --> 0:32:36.600
<v Speaker 1>a attachment. We have two techniques that we're developed for

0:32:36.640 --> 0:32:40.560
<v Speaker 1>a different age, and we keep trying to apply those

0:32:40.560 --> 0:32:43.560
<v Speaker 1>techniques to the new age companies, which are eighty percent

0:32:43.640 --> 0:32:48.680
<v Speaker 1>the market now is that of by market cap or

0:32:48.680 --> 0:32:52.400
<v Speaker 1>by number of market gaps. So basically are are at

0:32:52.480 --> 0:32:55.200
<v Speaker 1>least some aspect of them. But as a new age

0:32:55.240 --> 0:32:59.440
<v Speaker 1>it's their value comes not from physical assets. So I

0:32:59.440 --> 0:33:02.400
<v Speaker 1>think of Co Cola as a new age company in

0:33:02.400 --> 0:33:05.720
<v Speaker 1>the sense of the physical investments at Coca Cola makes

0:33:05.760 --> 0:33:08.320
<v Speaker 1>a completely useless in my determining what the value of

0:33:08.320 --> 0:33:11.440
<v Speaker 1>Coca Cola really So it's what is it? Brand recognition,

0:33:11.560 --> 0:33:15.240
<v Speaker 1>intellectual property exactly right. So it's a capacity to charge

0:33:15.320 --> 0:33:17.880
<v Speaker 1>a dollar for a can of water with crap and

0:33:17.920 --> 0:33:21.720
<v Speaker 1>sugar and syrup thrown into it. It costs the three

0:33:21.720 --> 0:33:25.600
<v Speaker 1>cents to make. It's it's pure pricing power. That pricing

0:33:25.600 --> 0:33:27.320
<v Speaker 1>power is not going to be reflected if I look

0:33:27.360 --> 0:33:29.160
<v Speaker 1>at the plant and equipment. In fact, when they're sold

0:33:29.200 --> 0:33:32.040
<v Speaker 1>off their bottling, they were telling us a look, you know,

0:33:32.240 --> 0:33:36.479
<v Speaker 1>physical assets don't matter. It's all about brand name, right.

0:33:36.520 --> 0:33:39.040
<v Speaker 1>It's the purest brand name play you can make because

0:33:39.040 --> 0:33:42.640
<v Speaker 1>the bottling is separated from from the rest of the company.

0:33:42.680 --> 0:33:45.360
<v Speaker 1>So what about a company like Walt Disney where you

0:33:45.400 --> 0:33:48.600
<v Speaker 1>have a mix of assets. You have you have the

0:33:48.600 --> 0:33:51.840
<v Speaker 1>theme parks, you have the television studios, you have there's

0:33:51.880 --> 0:33:54.560
<v Speaker 1>so many different moving parts. How do you put a valuation.

0:33:54.600 --> 0:33:57.160
<v Speaker 1>I'm a Disney investor. You know what scares me the most?

0:33:57.160 --> 0:34:02.400
<v Speaker 1>At forty percent of Disney's value comes from ESPN. That's

0:34:02.400 --> 0:34:05.680
<v Speaker 1>the facts. You have a lot of competition for ESPN.

0:34:05.960 --> 0:34:09.000
<v Speaker 1>And here's why ESPN has been the greatest cash cow

0:34:09.200 --> 0:34:13.520
<v Speaker 1>in broadcasting history. Every person who's listening to the show

0:34:13.600 --> 0:34:19.040
<v Speaker 1>who has cable, well, it's not that they're paying seven

0:34:19.120 --> 0:34:22.880
<v Speaker 1>dollars each month of their cable bill is going to ESPN.

0:34:23.120 --> 0:34:26.120
<v Speaker 1>Now what happens when we unbundled in people's That's what

0:34:26.280 --> 0:34:30.760
<v Speaker 1>scares me, right because for two decades it was cable

0:34:30.840 --> 0:34:34.040
<v Speaker 1>or nothing. And now my son was who's who's not

0:34:34.200 --> 0:34:37.719
<v Speaker 1>quite thirty, has got the cable because you know, and

0:34:37.760 --> 0:34:39.920
<v Speaker 1>the reason he's able to use it doesn't watch live sports.

0:34:39.960 --> 0:34:44.200
<v Speaker 1>So to him watching Hulu, Netflix, the way I describe ESPN,

0:34:44.200 --> 0:34:47.120
<v Speaker 1>it's the only thing left between cable and the abyss.

0:34:47.680 --> 0:34:50.640
<v Speaker 1>Because you take life sports out of cable, you've taken

0:34:50.640 --> 0:34:53.200
<v Speaker 1>the lifeblood out of cable. So if people want to

0:34:53.239 --> 0:34:56.040
<v Speaker 1>find more of your research and writing other than the

0:34:56.080 --> 0:35:01.160
<v Speaker 1>books on Amazon, where can they find your your valuation

0:35:01.800 --> 0:35:04.960
<v Speaker 1>discussions and where is your blog? I describe myself as

0:35:04.960 --> 0:35:10.560
<v Speaker 1>a Kim Kardashian evaluation, I am. I'm never shy about

0:35:10.640 --> 0:35:14.720
<v Speaker 1>exposing the material that I have. So I write a blog,

0:35:14.760 --> 0:35:17.200
<v Speaker 1>whichever I do write once a week, and where is that?

0:35:17.520 --> 0:35:19.920
<v Speaker 1>And that's it's a Google blog. So it's actually it's

0:35:19.920 --> 0:35:22.600
<v Speaker 1>called music on Musings on Markets. It's a Google blog.

0:35:22.680 --> 0:35:24.759
<v Speaker 1>So if you type in musings on Markets and my name,

0:35:24.800 --> 0:35:28.120
<v Speaker 1>it should pop up. And I don't put right every day,

0:35:28.120 --> 0:35:31.200
<v Speaker 1>but I write whenever I find something interesting right about.

0:35:31.239 --> 0:35:34.719
<v Speaker 1>So this week I wrote about Deutschebek Why because I

0:35:34.760 --> 0:35:38.920
<v Speaker 1>was just interested in the necessarily exactly the mess that's

0:35:38.960 --> 0:35:42.680
<v Speaker 1>been created. Wells Fargo should be next to New Cross.

0:35:42.680 --> 0:35:45.719
<v Speaker 1>But I drom I value the San Diego Clippers when

0:35:45.920 --> 0:35:48.680
<v Speaker 1>Steve Barmber bought it for two billion, because I was curious,

0:35:48.680 --> 0:35:50.800
<v Speaker 1>it's really worth two billion? I mean, I'm sort of

0:35:50.800 --> 0:35:53.160
<v Speaker 1>the Los Angeles Clippers because I lived in Los Angeles.

0:35:53.239 --> 0:35:56.360
<v Speaker 1>I know how much of a poor cousin the Clippers

0:35:56.360 --> 0:35:57.879
<v Speaker 1>out of the Lakers in l A. And I said,

0:35:57.920 --> 0:35:59.799
<v Speaker 1>you're playing two billion for the Clippers. If that's true,

0:35:59.840 --> 0:36:03.720
<v Speaker 1>how should I pay for the Lakers? I valued Aryan Foster,

0:36:04.320 --> 0:36:09.319
<v Speaker 1>the running back for the Houston the NFL team at

0:36:09.360 --> 0:36:13.319
<v Speaker 1>one point issue tracking stock on his earning st right.

0:36:13.719 --> 0:36:16.520
<v Speaker 1>So I valued a running back in the NFL. And

0:36:16.640 --> 0:36:19.080
<v Speaker 1>this summer I was actually I was watching my kids

0:36:19.080 --> 0:36:21.120
<v Speaker 1>and these are grown up kids with a Pokemon Go

0:36:21.239 --> 0:36:23.080
<v Speaker 1>all over, and I said, when it was a Nintendo

0:36:23.200 --> 0:36:26.000
<v Speaker 1>really doubled in value just because everybody's using Pokemon Go.

0:36:26.680 --> 0:36:29.480
<v Speaker 1>So when I think about value, I just think about

0:36:29.520 --> 0:36:31.799
<v Speaker 1>value across the board. I'm I would know what the

0:36:31.880 --> 0:36:35.480
<v Speaker 1>pricing of bitcoin is. Why is bitcoin press? So I'm

0:36:35.520 --> 0:36:37.680
<v Speaker 1>I describe myself not as an expert in valuation, but

0:36:37.719 --> 0:36:41.520
<v Speaker 1>as a dabbler invaluation. I'm just fascinated by how people

0:36:41.560 --> 0:36:44.480
<v Speaker 1>attach numbers to things, and I look at them in

0:36:44.560 --> 0:36:48.239
<v Speaker 1>my blog. So musing on musing zen market, people are

0:36:48.239 --> 0:36:51.759
<v Speaker 1>gonna just look for Aswadamadaran and using zo market. There's

0:36:51.760 --> 0:36:54.040
<v Speaker 1>a website I have called the Modern Online. So if

0:36:54.040 --> 0:36:56.400
<v Speaker 1>you'd open The Modern Online, which is where you actually

0:36:56.440 --> 0:37:00.479
<v Speaker 1>apologize for it not being pretty, because I'm the reason

0:37:00.600 --> 0:37:04.560
<v Speaker 1>is I get offers from people who are web designers

0:37:04.640 --> 0:37:06.879
<v Speaker 1>and they keep saying, I can make your website look

0:37:06.920 --> 0:37:10.960
<v Speaker 1>really much more attractive, and you can because I need

0:37:11.040 --> 0:37:13.400
<v Speaker 1>to be because I visit my website at least once

0:37:13.440 --> 0:37:16.239
<v Speaker 1>every day or two to add stuff. It's a constant

0:37:16.560 --> 0:37:18.319
<v Speaker 1>because you look at the amount of stuff and on

0:37:18.360 --> 0:37:20.719
<v Speaker 1>the website, it's got there incrementally. So the way it

0:37:20.880 --> 0:37:23.360
<v Speaker 1>works is Wednesday, I taught Monday, I taught a class.

0:37:23.719 --> 0:37:26.280
<v Speaker 1>When I teach the class, it's actually recorded. A YouTube

0:37:26.360 --> 0:37:28.799
<v Speaker 1>video is created out of the class, and I go

0:37:28.920 --> 0:37:30.920
<v Speaker 1>to my website and I put the YouTube video, and

0:37:30.960 --> 0:37:32.680
<v Speaker 1>I put the link to the class, and I put

0:37:32.719 --> 0:37:35.000
<v Speaker 1>the lecture notes I put. I put pretty much my

0:37:35.160 --> 0:37:37.440
<v Speaker 1>entire life is on the website, so you can get

0:37:37.480 --> 0:37:42.000
<v Speaker 1>my classes, my writing, my essentially any aspect of what

0:37:42.080 --> 0:37:45.120
<v Speaker 1>I do in business, I put on that website. So

0:37:45.200 --> 0:37:47.840
<v Speaker 1>I do that. I give a YouTube channel. I have

0:37:47.840 --> 0:37:50.320
<v Speaker 1>a YouTube channel on which I put playlists. The players

0:37:50.360 --> 0:37:53.080
<v Speaker 1>some of the playlists are of my classes. Every time

0:37:53.080 --> 0:37:55.640
<v Speaker 1>I do a blog post, I've learned that I can

0:37:55.760 --> 0:37:58.120
<v Speaker 1>double the number of people who are exposed to that

0:37:58.160 --> 0:38:00.800
<v Speaker 1>blog post by putting a YouTube video on the blog post.

0:38:00.920 --> 0:38:04.759
<v Speaker 1>And what do you discuss the post? I've discovered people

0:38:04.800 --> 0:38:07.120
<v Speaker 1>have stopped reading. A lot of people will never have

0:38:07.160 --> 0:38:10.239
<v Speaker 1>done the other direction. To me, I could read so

0:38:10.360 --> 0:38:13.960
<v Speaker 1>much more than watching a video or listening to it,

0:38:14.160 --> 0:38:16.920
<v Speaker 1>and people have told me they'll listen to this podcast.

0:38:17.239 --> 0:38:18.839
<v Speaker 1>There are a couple of apps that will let you

0:38:18.920 --> 0:38:22.560
<v Speaker 1>listen to it at I think one point five times

0:38:22.600 --> 0:38:25.880
<v Speaker 1>the speed. There's an optimal number. But I've tried to

0:38:25.920 --> 0:38:29.000
<v Speaker 1>do that and I found that that's really especially a

0:38:29.040 --> 0:38:32.600
<v Speaker 1>conversation that might be a little more complex or nuanced.

0:38:33.280 --> 0:38:35.239
<v Speaker 1>I find it's a challenge. So what I do? Then?

0:38:35.320 --> 0:38:37.000
<v Speaker 1>I do the blog post. It's actually I sit in

0:38:37.080 --> 0:38:39.840
<v Speaker 1>front of my computer with slides, so teacher treated like

0:38:39.880 --> 0:38:41.840
<v Speaker 1>a class. I said, if I had twelve minutes to

0:38:41.880 --> 0:38:44.560
<v Speaker 1>take this blog post and teach a class around it,

0:38:45.000 --> 0:38:47.560
<v Speaker 1>because that's to me, I mean, I love teaching, and

0:38:47.600 --> 0:38:50.600
<v Speaker 1>to me, a blog post is just another opportunity to

0:38:50.640 --> 0:38:54.560
<v Speaker 1>talk about a company, so and generalize the discussion because

0:38:54.600 --> 0:38:56.960
<v Speaker 1>I don't want a blog post to ever be about

0:38:57.080 --> 0:38:59.520
<v Speaker 1>just Deutsche Bank. So when I value Deutsche Bank, I

0:38:59.560 --> 0:39:01.360
<v Speaker 1>want would be able to take what I do in

0:39:01.400 --> 0:39:03.680
<v Speaker 1>dotche Bank and value wells fargoing. You're not You're not

0:39:03.719 --> 0:39:06.279
<v Speaker 1>giving them a fish, you're teaching them to fish. Here's

0:39:06.280 --> 0:39:09.239
<v Speaker 1>an example. Now apply the selfwhere in fact, where I

0:39:09.320 --> 0:39:13.120
<v Speaker 1>describe it as would rather be transparently wrong than opaquely right.

0:39:13.640 --> 0:39:15.640
<v Speaker 1>And what I mean by that is, this is a

0:39:15.640 --> 0:39:17.799
<v Speaker 1>business where people want to be opaquely right. You listen

0:39:17.840 --> 0:39:20.719
<v Speaker 1>to c NBC. You see people coming on, and they

0:39:20.760 --> 0:39:23.000
<v Speaker 1>talked for about six minutes. In the end of six minutes,

0:39:23.040 --> 0:39:26.360
<v Speaker 1>you say, what exactly did they say? They've been so opaque,

0:39:26.960 --> 0:39:29.040
<v Speaker 1>that they're so careful because they don't want to be wrong,

0:39:29.080 --> 0:39:32.200
<v Speaker 1>that they've kind of covered every base and they put

0:39:32.239 --> 0:39:35.760
<v Speaker 1>smoke and mirrors in there. I'd rather be open about

0:39:35.800 --> 0:39:37.680
<v Speaker 1>what I think. So I'm gonna say, dotes what twenty

0:39:37.680 --> 0:39:40.120
<v Speaker 1>one and a half and I'm buying it at thirteen

0:39:40.200 --> 0:39:43.719
<v Speaker 1>point two. Here's why I think it's what twenty one

0:39:43.920 --> 0:39:46.719
<v Speaker 1>And I could be absolutely wrong about every single one,

0:39:46.760 --> 0:39:49.120
<v Speaker 1>but at least if I'm wrong, you can tell me

0:39:49.239 --> 0:39:52.800
<v Speaker 1>what part of my valuation I screwed up on, you know? Um.

0:39:52.960 --> 0:39:57.560
<v Speaker 1>Professor tetlock Of of Wharton UH describes what you just

0:39:58.120 --> 0:40:02.359
<v Speaker 1>discussed as weasel words that when you whenever you see

0:40:02.400 --> 0:40:06.760
<v Speaker 1>someone discussing something and they're hoping to be opaquely wrong,

0:40:07.360 --> 0:40:11.440
<v Speaker 1>you'll hear them say there's a possibility, there's a better

0:40:11.520 --> 0:40:14.600
<v Speaker 1>than even chance. And when you step back and look

0:40:14.600 --> 0:40:18.480
<v Speaker 1>at all these statements. In reality, they have no meaning

0:40:18.600 --> 0:40:22.319
<v Speaker 1>because no matter what the outcome is, they get to say, well,

0:40:22.360 --> 0:40:25.200
<v Speaker 1>I told you that this was a possibility, it's happened,

0:40:25.640 --> 0:40:27.680
<v Speaker 1>and when it doesn't happen, it's like, well, I said

0:40:27.680 --> 0:40:30.200
<v Speaker 1>it was only a possibility. I could tell the Giants

0:40:30.239 --> 0:40:33.960
<v Speaker 1>may win the Super Bowl this year. They may, I

0:40:34.040 --> 0:40:37.040
<v Speaker 1>think they And if they don't, well I told you

0:40:37.280 --> 0:40:39.799
<v Speaker 1>they only all right. So if people want to find

0:40:39.800 --> 0:40:43.799
<v Speaker 1>your work, they could go to Musing on Markets by

0:40:43.960 --> 0:40:49.880
<v Speaker 1>Professor Aswadamadarin. Your YouTube channel, which is gonna be just

0:40:50.040 --> 0:40:53.000
<v Speaker 1>search for your name on YouTube should find it. For

0:40:53.040 --> 0:40:55.480
<v Speaker 1>those of you who enjoy this conversation, be sure and

0:40:55.560 --> 0:40:58.000
<v Speaker 1>check out our podcast extras. Will we keep the tape

0:40:58.080 --> 0:41:03.080
<v Speaker 1>rolling and continue chatting ab out all things valuation. We

0:41:03.200 --> 0:41:05.879
<v Speaker 1>love your comments and feedback. Be Shoran right to us

0:41:06.000 --> 0:41:10.439
<v Speaker 1>at m IB podcast at Bloomberg dot net. Check out

0:41:10.480 --> 0:41:13.720
<v Speaker 1>my daily column on Bloomberg View dot com, or follow

0:41:13.760 --> 0:41:18.000
<v Speaker 1>me on Twitter at Rid Halts. I'm Barry Ridlts. You've

0:41:18.040 --> 0:41:22.640
<v Speaker 1>been listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio, brought

0:41:22.680 --> 0:41:25.600
<v Speaker 1>to you by Bank of America. Merrill Lynch committed to

0:41:25.640 --> 0:41:29.080
<v Speaker 1>bringing higher finance to lower carbon named the most innovative

0:41:29.080 --> 0:41:32.520
<v Speaker 1>investment bank for climate change and sustainability by the banker.

0:41:32.880 --> 0:41:36.200
<v Speaker 1>That's the power of Global Connections. Bank of America North

0:41:36.239 --> 0:41:40.839
<v Speaker 1>America member f D I C. Welcome to the podcast. UM,

0:41:40.880 --> 0:41:42.160
<v Speaker 1>I don't know why I do this. I do this

0:41:42.200 --> 0:41:45.880
<v Speaker 1>every week. Thank you, professor. This is really so interesting.

0:41:46.280 --> 0:41:49.160
<v Speaker 1>I mentioned to you I want to mention on the air. Um.

0:41:49.200 --> 0:41:51.080
<v Speaker 1>There are a few cf as in my office. They

0:41:51.080 --> 0:41:55.359
<v Speaker 1>were all excited when they heard you were, UM coming

0:41:55.400 --> 0:41:57.600
<v Speaker 1>on the show. Oh, he's the man, he's the man

0:41:57.680 --> 0:42:00.640
<v Speaker 1>on valuation. So a lot of these quite sans came

0:42:00.719 --> 0:42:03.480
<v Speaker 1>from them. They make me look much smarter than I

0:42:03.520 --> 0:42:06.879
<v Speaker 1>actually am. Um, let's talk about some before I get

0:42:06.880 --> 0:42:09.120
<v Speaker 1>into my favorite questions. And I know only have you

0:42:09.920 --> 0:42:11.960
<v Speaker 1>for a finite amount of time. Let's let's see if

0:42:12.000 --> 0:42:15.520
<v Speaker 1>I could find some of the questions that we skipped

0:42:15.560 --> 0:42:20.480
<v Speaker 1>through before that I thought were, um, really interesting. So

0:42:21.960 --> 0:42:24.520
<v Speaker 1>one of the questions that came from one of our

0:42:24.560 --> 0:42:27.319
<v Speaker 1>c f A s Hey, there are certain companies that

0:42:27.360 --> 0:42:31.640
<v Speaker 1>are cheap, aren't They cheap for a reason? And most

0:42:31.640 --> 0:42:33.719
<v Speaker 1>companies that are cheap are cheaper a reason. The whole

0:42:33.760 --> 0:42:36.880
<v Speaker 1>idea in investing is to separate the five percent of

0:42:36.920 --> 0:42:39.560
<v Speaker 1>companies that are cheap that shouldn't be cheap from the

0:42:39.640 --> 0:42:41.880
<v Speaker 1>ninety percent that are cheap for a good reason. So

0:42:42.000 --> 0:42:45.160
<v Speaker 1>you think the best approach for someone who's an expert

0:42:45.160 --> 0:42:50.160
<v Speaker 1>in valuation is to take a value oriented investment tact

0:42:50.239 --> 0:42:52.719
<v Speaker 1>that that's the best strategy. But if you're not going

0:42:52.760 --> 0:42:55.240
<v Speaker 1>to be even one of those indexers. But I'm saying,

0:42:55.360 --> 0:42:58.520
<v Speaker 1>value oriented to me, is a much broader concept than

0:42:58.800 --> 0:43:01.840
<v Speaker 1>value oriented to know, old time value investor. So who

0:43:02.200 --> 0:43:06.120
<v Speaker 1>Warren Buffett do you think that's a or Benjamin Graham

0:43:06.440 --> 0:43:09.560
<v Speaker 1>old time? You're looking at it slightly differently, And here's

0:43:09.560 --> 0:43:12.680
<v Speaker 1>the difference. They actually want to buy companies where the

0:43:12.719 --> 0:43:15.279
<v Speaker 1>price is less than the value. What's what's already on

0:43:15.320 --> 0:43:17.280
<v Speaker 1>the ground. I mean, if you think about the classic

0:43:17.360 --> 0:43:21.440
<v Speaker 1>net net strategy, the ten screens, what Ben Graham wanted

0:43:21.520 --> 0:43:24.000
<v Speaker 1>was a company which had a hundred dollars in cash,

0:43:24.400 --> 0:43:27.000
<v Speaker 1>no doubt, andrust trading at fifty dollars. How many of

0:43:27.040 --> 0:43:30.560
<v Speaker 1>those are that exactly right? So, in a sense, the

0:43:30.560 --> 0:43:33.640
<v Speaker 1>the sphere of old time value investing each year gets

0:43:33.960 --> 0:43:36.319
<v Speaker 1>smaller and smaller. So when I was in Omaha last

0:43:36.400 --> 0:43:39.040
<v Speaker 1>year and I was talking to the portfolio mans, because

0:43:39.239 --> 0:43:41.520
<v Speaker 1>for some reason, when they were pulled, they picked me

0:43:41.560 --> 0:43:43.520
<v Speaker 1>as one of the people they wanted to listen to.

0:43:43.600 --> 0:43:46.640
<v Speaker 1>They probably would never invite me back again. And I said,

0:43:46.719 --> 0:43:50.400
<v Speaker 1>old time value investing suffers from three proms. One is

0:43:50.440 --> 0:43:54.279
<v Speaker 1>it's extraordinarily rigid. Right, if all these rules right, it's

0:43:54.400 --> 0:43:58.200
<v Speaker 1>very ritualistic. You've got to go through all the rituals

0:43:58.200 --> 0:44:01.480
<v Speaker 1>of being a value investor. And it's very righteous. They

0:44:01.520 --> 0:44:04.200
<v Speaker 1>believe they're the chosen ones, right, they've done the right thing,

0:44:04.600 --> 0:44:07.160
<v Speaker 1>and they think the rest of the world deserves They're

0:44:07.239 --> 0:44:09.480
<v Speaker 1>very puritanical. Right, They're going to get it, and they

0:44:09.560 --> 0:44:12.800
<v Speaker 1>deserve and they want the text. So they're actually waiting

0:44:12.840 --> 0:44:15.319
<v Speaker 1>for the tech stalk collapse because they can wag their

0:44:15.320 --> 0:44:18.520
<v Speaker 1>fingers and say I told you so, So you told

0:44:18.560 --> 0:44:20.600
<v Speaker 1>that to them, and and that's why you think you're

0:44:20.600 --> 0:44:24.680
<v Speaker 1>not getting invited back. They did they chuckle or well.

0:44:24.719 --> 0:44:28.400
<v Speaker 1>I think that they they know in their heart of

0:44:28.480 --> 0:44:32.560
<v Speaker 1>hearts that this is I mean, it's it's I think

0:44:32.560 --> 0:44:34.880
<v Speaker 1>there are enough people in there who got past the

0:44:34.920 --> 0:44:38.160
<v Speaker 1>self delusion, who know, in a moment of honesty, that

0:44:38.320 --> 0:44:41.640
<v Speaker 1>this is what's crippling old time value investing. Now, when

0:44:41.640 --> 0:44:44.920
<v Speaker 1>you say crippling, some of the old time value investors,

0:44:44.960 --> 0:44:47.040
<v Speaker 1>and I guess Warren Buffett has to be in that group,

0:44:47.400 --> 0:44:49.880
<v Speaker 1>have done fairly well for themselves. And in fact, the

0:44:49.920 --> 0:44:53.120
<v Speaker 1>fact that we keep going back to Warren Buffett as

0:44:53.160 --> 0:44:56.919
<v Speaker 1>the name more improving. He's more revealing than anything else.

0:44:56.960 --> 0:44:59.799
<v Speaker 1>And even Warrant's not been warrened for quite a while.

0:45:00.000 --> 0:45:02.040
<v Speaker 1>It's been for the last ten years. He's played a

0:45:02.120 --> 0:45:05.080
<v Speaker 1>very different game, and it's an insider game where he

0:45:05.120 --> 0:45:08.560
<v Speaker 1>gets special deals from companies, and he gets fantastic, fantastic

0:45:08.680 --> 0:45:12.400
<v Speaker 1>deals because he brings the warm Buffett good housekeeping seal

0:45:12.400 --> 0:45:16.239
<v Speaker 1>of approvingly, they're buying credibility. That's when I love the

0:45:16.280 --> 0:45:19.760
<v Speaker 1>fact that when you compare Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs,

0:45:20.440 --> 0:45:24.960
<v Speaker 1>Lehman Brothers turn Dick Fold rejected a warm buffet lifeline

0:45:25.400 --> 0:45:27.880
<v Speaker 1>and subsequently went out of business. In Goldman Sacks is

0:45:27.920 --> 0:45:30.800
<v Speaker 1>doing better than ever because they took the buffet lifeline.

0:45:30.880 --> 0:45:32.839
<v Speaker 1>In fact, I'll give you a statistic that I think

0:45:33.080 --> 0:45:37.920
<v Speaker 1>is very indicative of value there if you compare active

0:45:38.000 --> 0:45:41.120
<v Speaker 1>value investors, these old time value investors to a value

0:45:41.320 --> 0:45:44.719
<v Speaker 1>investing index fund. Because value investing index fund. Basically, what

0:45:44.760 --> 0:45:46.279
<v Speaker 1>you do is you just buy all the low price

0:45:46.320 --> 0:45:48.359
<v Speaker 1>to bookstocks and these talks. You put them in an

0:45:48.360 --> 0:45:54.320
<v Speaker 1>index fund. The average active value investor underperforms the value

0:45:54.320 --> 0:45:58.839
<v Speaker 1>index fund by about one and a half percent base.

0:45:59.320 --> 0:46:06.839
<v Speaker 1>The average active growth investment investor underperforms the average growth

0:46:06.880 --> 0:46:10.160
<v Speaker 1>fund by only fifty basis points. So they both underperformed.

0:46:10.280 --> 0:46:13.960
<v Speaker 1>But the average value investor actually and wonder why that is?

0:46:14.000 --> 0:46:15.640
<v Speaker 1>And I think the reason is very simple. What does

0:46:15.640 --> 0:46:18.360
<v Speaker 1>an old time value investor bring to the table that's unique.

0:46:18.560 --> 0:46:21.239
<v Speaker 1>Anybody can compute low p right or low price to

0:46:21.280 --> 0:46:25.360
<v Speaker 1>book or go the financial ratios. So at least a

0:46:25.400 --> 0:46:28.000
<v Speaker 1>growth investor might have a chance because you've got to

0:46:28.040 --> 0:46:31.360
<v Speaker 1>think about or they could they could have some competitive

0:46:31.360 --> 0:46:34.200
<v Speaker 1>advantage and assessing a market and making judgments and whether

0:46:34.200 --> 0:46:38.160
<v Speaker 1>wober will succeed or not. So the message I left

0:46:38.160 --> 0:46:40.120
<v Speaker 1>them is, don't be so right, is because the average

0:46:40.160 --> 0:46:43.440
<v Speaker 1>growth investor actually does much better. You know, they both underperforming,

0:46:43.719 --> 0:46:47.480
<v Speaker 1>both underperform. At least they're less underperforming than you are.

0:46:47.640 --> 0:46:52.520
<v Speaker 1>So so let's talk about those um dimensions. Let's talk

0:46:52.560 --> 0:46:57.799
<v Speaker 1>about the Farmer French factor model. You talked about a

0:46:57.840 --> 0:47:01.759
<v Speaker 1>liquid small cap stuffs. We know small cap is a

0:47:01.800 --> 0:47:06.760
<v Speaker 1>factor that tends to outperform. We also know valuation tends

0:47:06.800 --> 0:47:10.040
<v Speaker 1>to outprice price book right, and then the same thing

0:47:10.080 --> 0:47:14.520
<v Speaker 1>with quality if you eliminate the high debt laden companies.

0:47:14.920 --> 0:47:20.040
<v Speaker 1>So so, given what we know about those those factors, um,

0:47:20.080 --> 0:47:23.480
<v Speaker 1>what is that telling us about just straight up valuation

0:47:24.040 --> 0:47:26.200
<v Speaker 1>based investment? I think two things. One is we have

0:47:26.239 --> 0:47:28.239
<v Speaker 1>too much data now and part of the problems you

0:47:28.280 --> 0:47:30.879
<v Speaker 1>have so much data and everybody's looking. Every year there's

0:47:30.880 --> 0:47:33.480
<v Speaker 1>a new factor that people see up to six smart

0:47:33.560 --> 0:47:37.120
<v Speaker 1>datas and you know, so now you they've added momentum,

0:47:37.160 --> 0:47:40.880
<v Speaker 1>and they've added there's just six is three factor model,

0:47:41.000 --> 0:47:43.719
<v Speaker 1>and so you could create any And that's why when

0:47:43.760 --> 0:47:48.799
<v Speaker 1>people talk about these these index funds, which are they're

0:47:48.800 --> 0:47:50.879
<v Speaker 1>early quasi index funds where you do a little bit

0:47:50.920 --> 0:47:54.160
<v Speaker 1>of active stuff on the side. You're just not buying

0:47:54.160 --> 0:47:58.040
<v Speaker 1>it based on market cap. You basically using different basically

0:47:58.160 --> 0:48:02.120
<v Speaker 1>tilted You're they're using the proxy data from the past.

0:48:02.160 --> 0:48:05.400
<v Speaker 1>And here's my cautionary note. Any time use any of

0:48:05.440 --> 0:48:09.040
<v Speaker 1>these things, you're implicitly assuming mean reversion, right. I mean, ever,

0:48:09.239 --> 0:48:11.399
<v Speaker 1>if you look at ninety percent of investing it's based

0:48:11.400 --> 0:48:15.760
<v Speaker 1>on and mean reversion worked incredibly well in the US

0:48:15.840 --> 0:48:21.000
<v Speaker 1>market in the twentieth century, except for steam companies and levels.

0:48:21.000 --> 0:48:22.920
<v Speaker 1>And the reason it did was if you look at

0:48:22.960 --> 0:48:26.360
<v Speaker 1>the history of economic growth over the centuries and you

0:48:26.440 --> 0:48:30.280
<v Speaker 1>plot the US between and two thousand and that graph.

0:48:30.560 --> 0:48:33.680
<v Speaker 1>On that graph, it's like watching a patient going to

0:48:33.680 --> 0:48:36.680
<v Speaker 1>a coma because if you look at it typical, you know,

0:48:36.719 --> 0:48:38.600
<v Speaker 1>when you go to a hospital, they say that it

0:48:38.880 --> 0:48:42.880
<v Speaker 1>is an unusual period of history, an incredibly stable period,

0:48:43.520 --> 0:48:46.759
<v Speaker 1>which made me reverse the whole post war exactly from

0:48:46.800 --> 0:48:49.360
<v Speaker 1>not because you were the global economy, you could do it.

0:48:49.560 --> 0:48:53.560
<v Speaker 1>And I remember recessions used to be so predictable. You

0:48:53.600 --> 0:48:55.800
<v Speaker 1>have a recession and six months in this would happen,

0:48:55.800 --> 0:48:58.440
<v Speaker 1>and three months later and it was it was almost

0:48:58.560 --> 0:49:03.880
<v Speaker 1>like you were on on a regular So many of

0:49:03.920 --> 0:49:06.800
<v Speaker 1>these things that we know work from the farmer friends

0:49:06.880 --> 0:49:11.399
<v Speaker 1>are based on looking at US data from through two

0:49:11.400 --> 0:49:13.760
<v Speaker 1>thousand two, so you have to look at out sample data,

0:49:13.760 --> 0:49:17.160
<v Speaker 1>and not even with the out sample data, I think

0:49:17.200 --> 0:49:20.879
<v Speaker 1>there's been a structural shift in the world. The US

0:49:20.960 --> 0:49:22.759
<v Speaker 1>is no longer the center of the universe. To me,

0:49:22.840 --> 0:49:25.840
<v Speaker 1>the wake up moment is two thousand and eight. I

0:49:26.000 --> 0:49:29.040
<v Speaker 1>describe September twelve to two tho eight, that's a Friday

0:49:29.040 --> 0:49:31.880
<v Speaker 1>before the Lehman collapse, as the last day of innocence

0:49:31.960 --> 0:49:34.400
<v Speaker 1>for me. That's interesting because I used to describe the

0:49:34.440 --> 0:49:37.400
<v Speaker 1>world as developer markets versus emerging markets. I used to

0:49:37.480 --> 0:49:40.400
<v Speaker 1>draw on meter version, And the lesson I got from

0:49:40.440 --> 0:49:43.160
<v Speaker 1>two thousand and eight was and maybe there's been a

0:49:43.200 --> 0:49:46.279
<v Speaker 1>structural shift, and all these things that look like they

0:49:46.360 --> 0:49:48.640
<v Speaker 1>work will continue to look like they work, but if

0:49:48.680 --> 0:49:52.719
<v Speaker 1>you put your money behind them, they might not work

0:49:52.760 --> 0:49:56.680
<v Speaker 1>anymore because you're looking at a very different economic model.

0:49:57.200 --> 0:50:01.160
<v Speaker 1>So I'm wary of all these because it's so easy

0:50:01.200 --> 0:50:04.120
<v Speaker 1>to make money on paper. So so how come more

0:50:04.160 --> 0:50:06.560
<v Speaker 1>people are not beating the market. If if all these

0:50:06.600 --> 0:50:10.719
<v Speaker 1>things beat the market, why is the average active investors

0:50:10.760 --> 0:50:13.879
<v Speaker 1>still under performing the market by one to I mean,

0:50:14.360 --> 0:50:17.360
<v Speaker 1>I've never seen active investing in the state of angst

0:50:17.680 --> 0:50:21.640
<v Speaker 1>that it's in right now. I mean, I know active investors,

0:50:21.640 --> 0:50:23.799
<v Speaker 1>and these are really smart people. Who mean I mean,

0:50:24.120 --> 0:50:26.359
<v Speaker 1>I know I've known them for thirty years and they

0:50:26.400 --> 0:50:29.480
<v Speaker 1>were They've always been extraordinary confident people, at least in

0:50:29.520 --> 0:50:32.920
<v Speaker 1>their own abilities. They might say collectively, they all lose,

0:50:33.000 --> 0:50:37.280
<v Speaker 1>but we win because those people are having second thoughts

0:50:37.280 --> 0:50:40.000
<v Speaker 1>about what they they They might never mentioned with their clients.

0:50:40.000 --> 0:50:44.560
<v Speaker 1>Of course they couldn't do it. But when I add

0:50:44.640 --> 0:50:46.279
<v Speaker 1>them in an honest moment, they said, I don't know

0:50:46.320 --> 0:50:48.759
<v Speaker 1>what I'm doing in this listeness anything. Charlie Ellis has

0:50:48.800 --> 0:50:55.040
<v Speaker 1>been talking about the paradox of skill since the nineties seventies,

0:50:55.080 --> 0:50:59.600
<v Speaker 1>the right, the whole idea that it's not that these

0:50:59.600 --> 0:51:02.640
<v Speaker 1>people are bad or dumb, it's that there are so

0:51:02.680 --> 0:51:06.279
<v Speaker 1>many of them and they're smart and good. That advantage

0:51:06.280 --> 0:51:10.839
<v Speaker 1>goes away. If everybody is really well schooled and well

0:51:10.960 --> 0:51:15.280
<v Speaker 1>educated and intelligent and and really skillful, how can that

0:51:15.719 --> 0:51:18.319
<v Speaker 1>group essentially you beat anyone else. And he has a

0:51:18.400 --> 0:51:20.960
<v Speaker 1>very simple way to think about, you know, Tom Friedman

0:51:21.000 --> 0:51:23.680
<v Speaker 1>at this world becoming the investment world has become a

0:51:23.680 --> 0:51:26.719
<v Speaker 1>flatter place. I tell people in six if you're an

0:51:26.760 --> 0:51:29.080
<v Speaker 1>investor in New York, you started off already with a

0:51:29.120 --> 0:51:32.279
<v Speaker 1>competitive advantage over a guy in Des Moines, Iowa. Because

0:51:32.320 --> 0:51:35.440
<v Speaker 1>the sec offices you could get to them, right, you

0:51:35.440 --> 0:51:37.600
<v Speaker 1>can go to get to get to a ten K

0:51:37.760 --> 0:51:40.040
<v Speaker 1>or a ten Q. You actually had to show up

0:51:40.040 --> 0:51:42.359
<v Speaker 1>at the offices and get the physical copy. There were

0:51:42.360 --> 0:51:48.640
<v Speaker 1>no online PDF versions, so you had competitive advantages coming

0:51:48.680 --> 0:51:52.760
<v Speaker 1>from location, from where you work from. As the data

0:51:52.760 --> 0:51:56.320
<v Speaker 1>has become more accessible and everybody has, you know, computers

0:51:56.360 --> 0:51:58.160
<v Speaker 1>that they can use, and you can't claim I'm the

0:51:58.200 --> 0:52:00.600
<v Speaker 1>only main frame computer in the world now have it?

0:52:01.200 --> 0:52:03.920
<v Speaker 1>The words become a flatter place. So it doesn't surprise

0:52:04.000 --> 0:52:08.160
<v Speaker 1>me that the payoff to active investing has dropped. And

0:52:08.160 --> 0:52:10.560
<v Speaker 1>the more people tried, the worst they're going to do

0:52:10.640 --> 0:52:13.600
<v Speaker 1>because as they tried, they're expanding more resources to kind

0:52:13.600 --> 0:52:17.000
<v Speaker 1>of run in place. So I think Charlie was prescient

0:52:17.080 --> 0:52:19.000
<v Speaker 1>when he wrote that. Not that was way back, but

0:52:19.080 --> 0:52:20.959
<v Speaker 1>I think it's kind of caught up with the word now.

0:52:22.000 --> 0:52:24.680
<v Speaker 1>So um god, there's so many other questions I want

0:52:24.680 --> 0:52:27.480
<v Speaker 1>to plow through before I get to my my run

0:52:27.520 --> 0:52:33.239
<v Speaker 1>of favorite questions, my standard questions. UM, let me ask

0:52:33.280 --> 0:52:37.160
<v Speaker 1>you one or two other questions about we talked about Tesla,

0:52:37.239 --> 0:52:44.520
<v Speaker 1>We talked about um Amazon in in the original forecasts

0:52:44.760 --> 0:52:48.719
<v Speaker 1>or or or strategic plan that Besos made. I don't

0:52:48.760 --> 0:52:52.799
<v Speaker 1>recall ever reading anything about the cloud based computing and

0:52:52.840 --> 0:52:56.680
<v Speaker 1>how they had built such a substantial infrastructure on their own.

0:52:57.719 --> 0:53:00.520
<v Speaker 1>How did the idea of of hey, let's sell this

0:53:00.640 --> 0:53:03.759
<v Speaker 1>to people so we can monetize something that we have

0:53:03.840 --> 0:53:06.520
<v Speaker 1>to do ourselves. When did that come along? And that's

0:53:06.640 --> 0:53:09.239
<v Speaker 1>a five or ten billion dollar business, isn't it? And

0:53:09.280 --> 0:53:11.719
<v Speaker 1>I think it's in that sense of Amazon in the

0:53:11.800 --> 0:53:14.840
<v Speaker 1>nineties never talked about because it was a book retailer.

0:53:15.160 --> 0:53:19.680
<v Speaker 1>Seven really in the letter. In the letter you never

0:53:19.800 --> 0:53:23.080
<v Speaker 1>mentioned that there were a book He said, whatever business

0:53:23.160 --> 0:53:27.120
<v Speaker 1>we're in, we're going to go after businesses that we

0:53:27.200 --> 0:53:32.680
<v Speaker 1>think our big businesses where the existing players are not

0:53:33.600 --> 0:53:36.040
<v Speaker 1>playing the game we think, and we're going to sell

0:53:36.080 --> 0:53:38.520
<v Speaker 1>stuff at costa below in that business. So in a

0:53:38.560 --> 0:53:40.360
<v Speaker 1>sense he was laying the framework for what was the

0:53:40.400 --> 0:53:44.600
<v Speaker 1>first retail business, then the entertainment business, now the cloud

0:53:44.600 --> 0:53:47.880
<v Speaker 1>computing business. Right it's it's it's the basic business models.

0:53:47.880 --> 0:53:50.880
<v Speaker 1>We're going to go after big businesses. If I were

0:53:50.920 --> 0:53:54.400
<v Speaker 1>a bank, my worst case scenarios that some of Amazon

0:53:54.480 --> 0:53:56.080
<v Speaker 1>decides that the next thing they want to do is

0:53:56.120 --> 0:53:59.640
<v Speaker 1>big time fintech. Let's face it, there's no business where

0:53:59.680 --> 0:54:02.719
<v Speaker 1>there's s value added by the existing players in the game,

0:54:02.920 --> 0:54:07.480
<v Speaker 1>for sure. And you think about Amazon has everybody's credit

0:54:07.480 --> 0:54:10.080
<v Speaker 1>card on file, what do they have half a billion quireants,

0:54:10.120 --> 0:54:11.880
<v Speaker 1>and they know a lot more about me than I

0:54:11.920 --> 0:54:13.719
<v Speaker 1>ever want them to know. Right you open up an

0:54:13.719 --> 0:54:16.400
<v Speaker 1>Amazon page, it's kind of creepy because they said, oh,

0:54:16.480 --> 0:54:18.759
<v Speaker 1>you might want to look at these five items, just

0:54:18.840 --> 0:54:21.839
<v Speaker 1>like Netflix. Right see. I find it less creepy from

0:54:21.880 --> 0:54:24.880
<v Speaker 1>Amazon than I do from Facebook. So when I go

0:54:24.960 --> 0:54:28.560
<v Speaker 1>to Amazon and um, Norah Jones has a new CD

0:54:28.680 --> 0:54:31.960
<v Speaker 1>coming out, Amazon knows I bought a Norah Jones c

0:54:32.120 --> 0:54:35.480
<v Speaker 1>D six years ago and it shows up in you

0:54:35.520 --> 0:54:38.640
<v Speaker 1>may want to see these That's different than going to

0:54:38.719 --> 0:54:41.880
<v Speaker 1>a hall. So I could kind of Hey, if I

0:54:41.960 --> 0:54:43.680
<v Speaker 1>for kids who are listening, there used to be a

0:54:43.680 --> 0:54:46.440
<v Speaker 1>store called Tower Records, and right by n y U

0:54:46.640 --> 0:54:49.640
<v Speaker 1>on on Fourth Street and Broadway. If I walked into

0:54:49.640 --> 0:54:52.120
<v Speaker 1>Tower Records and they said, hey, I know you. You

0:54:52.160 --> 0:54:55.279
<v Speaker 1>were here for the Peter Gabriel album a few years ago.

0:54:55.640 --> 0:54:59.240
<v Speaker 1>Here's a new one, that wouldn't necessarily be all that creepy.

0:54:59.280 --> 0:55:02.600
<v Speaker 1>But when I so, We're redoing a room in the

0:55:02.640 --> 0:55:07.360
<v Speaker 1>house and I'm searching for polls like nibs for a

0:55:07.400 --> 0:55:10.920
<v Speaker 1>for a cabinet, and I'm not on Facebook. I'm in

0:55:10.960 --> 0:55:15.279
<v Speaker 1>a wholly different part of the Internet. And then I

0:55:15.360 --> 0:55:19.640
<v Speaker 1>show up on Facebook and here adds for that's really creepy.

0:55:19.719 --> 0:55:22.600
<v Speaker 1>And that's why when I leave Facebook, I log out

0:55:23.080 --> 0:55:25.839
<v Speaker 1>so they can't track me because I find that and

0:55:25.880 --> 0:55:27.600
<v Speaker 1>I don't know if that's still true that used to

0:55:27.600 --> 0:55:30.960
<v Speaker 1>be true. I find that really creepy, really obnoxious, and

0:55:30.960 --> 0:55:32.880
<v Speaker 1>that's why I'm not an act. And you're right, Amazon,

0:55:32.920 --> 0:55:36.080
<v Speaker 1>at least it's the commercial relationship, the stuff. You understand

0:55:36.080 --> 0:55:38.520
<v Speaker 1>why they do and I've bought that stuff. That's the

0:55:38.520 --> 0:55:40.879
<v Speaker 1>other thing is if I've bought books or CDs from

0:55:40.880 --> 0:55:45.120
<v Speaker 1>Amazon and they say our recommendation engine said you bought this,

0:55:45.160 --> 0:55:47.440
<v Speaker 1>and this and this, you might be interested in this.

0:55:49.800 --> 0:55:53.359
<v Speaker 1>That's not a big intrusive leap as opposed to, oh,

0:55:53.440 --> 0:55:56.719
<v Speaker 1>let's see how Susie's baby is doing. No, I don't

0:55:56.960 --> 0:55:59.600
<v Speaker 1>need you to sell me this. You know, chrome and

0:55:59.719 --> 0:56:02.720
<v Speaker 1>leather a pole. I decided not to get it, stopped

0:56:02.719 --> 0:56:06.239
<v Speaker 1>following me around the internet. And I think that this

0:56:06.600 --> 0:56:09.000
<v Speaker 1>goes to the heart of big data, right, because again,

0:56:09.000 --> 0:56:11.719
<v Speaker 1>big data has become this buzzword that everybody throws out.

0:56:12.280 --> 0:56:14.960
<v Speaker 1>Nine percent companies that claim to use big data have

0:56:14.960 --> 0:56:17.719
<v Speaker 1>no idea what to do with it. I saw, you know,

0:56:18.520 --> 0:56:22.440
<v Speaker 1>job job listing, for I think it was I don't

0:56:22.480 --> 0:56:25.080
<v Speaker 1>know toys r US saying well, we want a big

0:56:25.200 --> 0:56:27.600
<v Speaker 1>data specialist and saying, what the heck are you guys

0:56:27.600 --> 0:56:30.160
<v Speaker 1>going to do with big data? The companies that are

0:56:30.160 --> 0:56:34.279
<v Speaker 1>the biggest users of big data are Google, Facebook, Nextlix,

0:56:34.360 --> 0:56:38.960
<v Speaker 1>and Amazon because to them, big data actually is collecting information.

0:56:39.000 --> 0:56:42.680
<v Speaker 1>And Netflix actually is even bigger into big data because

0:56:42.680 --> 0:56:47.200
<v Speaker 1>they're actually making shows based on because they remember, not recommending,

0:56:47.239 --> 0:56:51.399
<v Speaker 1>they're actually going out building products because they can. They're

0:56:51.400 --> 0:56:53.520
<v Speaker 1>not only did they know what you watch, they also

0:56:53.600 --> 0:56:56.560
<v Speaker 1>know when you stopped watching it's it's again kind of creepy,

0:56:56.560 --> 0:56:58.840
<v Speaker 1>you're going to show? They remember twenty seven minutes you

0:56:58.840 --> 0:57:02.120
<v Speaker 1>gave up on the show. To actually track what shows

0:57:02.160 --> 0:57:06.040
<v Speaker 1>you're watching, what shows you stopping watching, when you're stopping watching,

0:57:06.160 --> 0:57:09.400
<v Speaker 1>what might have caused you to stop watching, and in

0:57:09.400 --> 0:57:12.719
<v Speaker 1>a sense that incorporating all of that into trying to

0:57:12.880 --> 0:57:15.600
<v Speaker 1>make shows that are just for you, right, which is

0:57:15.640 --> 0:57:19.600
<v Speaker 1>so bizarre because if you read William Goldman in Confessions

0:57:19.640 --> 0:57:24.760
<v Speaker 1>of a of a Screenwriter, he describes the quote I

0:57:24.800 --> 0:57:28.080
<v Speaker 1>love and applies to investing. As much as Hollywood, nobody

0:57:28.120 --> 0:57:31.760
<v Speaker 1>knows anything they passed on Star wars. No one wants

0:57:31.840 --> 0:57:36.200
<v Speaker 1>to make it people. I think Indiana Jones was twelve.

0:57:36.280 --> 0:57:38.920
<v Speaker 1>Studio said no to it, and he has a hundred

0:57:38.920 --> 0:57:43.520
<v Speaker 1>examples of all these blockbuster films that left to the

0:57:43.560 --> 0:57:46.240
<v Speaker 1>studio test and left to the big data people. Right,

0:57:46.560 --> 0:57:49.920
<v Speaker 1>So it makes me nervous that the quality of as

0:57:49.920 --> 0:57:52.600
<v Speaker 1>long as there are independents who can do that. On

0:57:52.640 --> 0:57:57.000
<v Speaker 1>the other hand, I gotta say, in general, the Amazon

0:57:57.080 --> 0:58:02.880
<v Speaker 1>recommendation engine pretty good. The net Flix recommendation engine really

0:58:02.960 --> 0:58:08.080
<v Speaker 1>not bad. Um. And I find myself sometimes logging out

0:58:08.120 --> 0:58:12.000
<v Speaker 1>of Google Search because I want to see the objective.

0:58:12.360 --> 0:58:15.840
<v Speaker 1>So when you search for something that modifies the Google

0:58:15.880 --> 0:58:19.479
<v Speaker 1>Search out algorithm, anything I've clicked on is actually if

0:58:19.680 --> 0:58:23.200
<v Speaker 1>So I have a Firefox and a Chrome open up

0:58:23.200 --> 0:58:25.640
<v Speaker 1>at once. I'm not logged into Firefox, but i am

0:58:25.680 --> 0:58:28.200
<v Speaker 1>logged into Chrome. Because every now and then I'll search

0:58:28.240 --> 0:58:31.600
<v Speaker 1>for something and I'll see the same results that I've

0:58:31.640 --> 0:58:34.440
<v Speaker 1>seen previously come up. It's like, no, no, I'm looking

0:58:34.440 --> 0:58:36.800
<v Speaker 1>for something new, not trying to find something I looked

0:58:36.840 --> 0:58:39.800
<v Speaker 1>for before. I hop over to Firefox, and now it's

0:58:39.800 --> 0:58:42.440
<v Speaker 1>a whole not logged into Google, it's a whole different

0:58:42.480 --> 0:58:45.520
<v Speaker 1>run of results. So that raises a whole another question

0:58:45.560 --> 0:58:48.920
<v Speaker 1>about how effective big data is and about the lines

0:58:48.960 --> 0:58:52.240
<v Speaker 1>that are being crossed along the way, which is privacy.

0:58:52.320 --> 0:58:55.040
<v Speaker 1>So when I hear people complain about privacy, I tell them, look,

0:58:55.080 --> 0:58:58.320
<v Speaker 1>your privacy has gone already. It's you and I are

0:58:58.320 --> 0:59:02.800
<v Speaker 1>both over fifty. We care about privacy. Kids happily open

0:59:02.840 --> 0:59:06.040
<v Speaker 1>the kimono for wait, I get a free coupon. Here,

0:59:06.200 --> 0:59:09.160
<v Speaker 1>you have access to every They don't think in terms

0:59:09.200 --> 0:59:12.720
<v Speaker 1>of privacy, which may they may end up regretting that.

0:59:13.120 --> 0:59:16.520
<v Speaker 1>They will, they will absolutely regret it because I think

0:59:16.520 --> 0:59:18.920
<v Speaker 1>two things are happening. One is our visions are being

0:59:19.000 --> 0:59:21.640
<v Speaker 1>narrowed because, as you said, the one of the advantages

0:59:21.760 --> 0:59:27.520
<v Speaker 1>of not being directed to the things you like specifically

0:59:27.960 --> 0:59:31.240
<v Speaker 1>look at you. So Pandora has a recommendation engine, which

0:59:31.280 --> 0:59:35.000
<v Speaker 1>I think is great. But Spotify just started this thing

0:59:35.120 --> 0:59:40.000
<v Speaker 1>where it's their new weekly playlist. Is hey, these are

0:59:40.320 --> 0:59:43.920
<v Speaker 1>Obviously if you listen to all death metal, country music,

0:59:43.960 --> 0:59:47.000
<v Speaker 1>probably isn't gonna work. But if you want to expand

0:59:47.080 --> 0:59:51.040
<v Speaker 1>your horizons just a little bit, and that excitement of

0:59:51.080 --> 0:59:54.880
<v Speaker 1>discovery gets lost if you're only fed the same stuff.

0:59:55.080 --> 0:59:57.120
<v Speaker 1>All right, I could talk about this stuff forever. But

0:59:57.200 --> 0:59:59.840
<v Speaker 1>I have questions I have to get to with you.

1:00:00.360 --> 1:00:02.680
<v Speaker 1>Of course, I think people want to hear less of

1:00:02.720 --> 1:00:05.800
<v Speaker 1>me and more of you, so you know, let me

1:00:05.840 --> 1:00:09.640
<v Speaker 1>find my favorite questions. Um, we got through a lot

1:00:09.640 --> 1:00:13.800
<v Speaker 1>of stuff, even if we didn't get through everything. By

1:00:13.800 --> 1:00:16.160
<v Speaker 1>the way you people are hearing this now, you should

1:00:16.200 --> 1:00:20.560
<v Speaker 1>realize there's like eight pages of questions in eighteen point fonts.

1:00:20.640 --> 1:00:22.960
<v Speaker 1>So I don't have to swint when I when I

1:00:23.000 --> 1:00:25.200
<v Speaker 1>see it. So you and I talked a little bit

1:00:25.200 --> 1:00:28.280
<v Speaker 1>about this. You come from the southern part of India,

1:00:28.320 --> 1:00:32.960
<v Speaker 1>you move to l a four um grad school, you

1:00:33.040 --> 1:00:35.440
<v Speaker 1>teach there, you go get your n b A and

1:00:35.720 --> 1:00:40.040
<v Speaker 1>your PhD. How do you give up the southern California

1:00:40.160 --> 1:00:44.600
<v Speaker 1>climate and come to New York with our miserable winters? How? How?

1:00:44.640 --> 1:00:47.360
<v Speaker 1>What are very reluctantly? I love New York as a city.

1:00:47.400 --> 1:00:49.560
<v Speaker 1>I love the fact that it's never boring, that things

1:00:49.600 --> 1:00:53.000
<v Speaker 1>are always happening. But I like leaving the city sometimes.

1:00:53.240 --> 1:00:57.400
<v Speaker 1>I know the feeling, and I do miss southern California weather,

1:00:57.520 --> 1:00:59.800
<v Speaker 1>especially on those days where I have to go out

1:01:00.120 --> 1:01:04.280
<v Speaker 1>shovel snow. So it's up and I it's it's been

1:01:04.320 --> 1:01:07.240
<v Speaker 1>thirty one years in New York, and I think it's time.

1:01:07.560 --> 1:01:09.880
<v Speaker 1>I'm at a stage in my life where I'm I

1:01:10.320 --> 1:01:13.040
<v Speaker 1>don't have to be in New York all year. So

1:01:13.720 --> 1:01:15.920
<v Speaker 1>at some point in time, more sooner rather than later,

1:01:15.960 --> 1:01:19.160
<v Speaker 1>I'll be back in California and enjoying the weather exactly.

1:01:19.280 --> 1:01:25.360
<v Speaker 1>So let's talk about I mentioned UM Berkeley where you

1:01:25.360 --> 1:01:26.960
<v Speaker 1>were a lecturer, U c l A, where you got

1:01:26.960 --> 1:01:29.360
<v Speaker 1>your m b A and PhD. Who were some of

1:01:29.440 --> 1:01:32.800
<v Speaker 1>your early mentors who guided your career in law. It's

1:01:32.840 --> 1:01:35.600
<v Speaker 1>interesting when I was a PhD student at U c

1:01:35.760 --> 1:01:37.600
<v Speaker 1>l A. We had a professor of the University of

1:01:37.720 --> 1:01:41.360
<v Speaker 1>Chicago visit every summer because every winter because he didn't

1:01:41.400 --> 1:01:45.800
<v Speaker 1>want the guy called Jeane Farmer. And Jeane used to

1:01:45.920 --> 1:01:49.760
<v Speaker 1>love to play tennis, and I was I used to

1:01:49.800 --> 1:01:53.120
<v Speaker 1>teach tennis for a long time. I was given I

1:01:53.160 --> 1:01:55.960
<v Speaker 1>was assigned as his r A simply because I could

1:01:56.000 --> 1:01:59.960
<v Speaker 1>play tennis with him, and so it was I was exposed.

1:02:00.600 --> 1:02:04.080
<v Speaker 1>So Jean was a very big influence on me. Um

1:02:04.320 --> 1:02:06.320
<v Speaker 1>Dick Roll, who was at U c l A then,

1:02:06.440 --> 1:02:09.040
<v Speaker 1>was a big researcher, and you know how difficult it

1:02:09.120 --> 1:02:11.040
<v Speaker 1>was to test the Kapam and other models was a

1:02:11.040 --> 1:02:14.120
<v Speaker 1>big influence Tom Copeland, who taught me corporate finance and

1:02:14.200 --> 1:02:16.440
<v Speaker 1>then went on to McKinsey to write the first valuation

1:02:16.520 --> 1:02:20.280
<v Speaker 1>but kind of embedded the liking for valuation and corporate finance.

1:02:20.360 --> 1:02:23.000
<v Speaker 1>So I was lucky. It was an interesting and exciting

1:02:23.080 --> 1:02:24.800
<v Speaker 1>time to be in finance. And I think in a

1:02:24.880 --> 1:02:28.200
<v Speaker 1>sense it's um when I look at how finance has

1:02:28.280 --> 1:02:31.080
<v Speaker 1>kind of changed over time. It's like any other discipline.

1:02:31.120 --> 1:02:33.800
<v Speaker 1>When you start the discipline, you ask really big questions,

1:02:33.880 --> 1:02:36.440
<v Speaker 1>like in physics a hundred years ago, your Einstein and

1:02:36.480 --> 1:02:39.280
<v Speaker 1>Bore asking questions about the meaning of the universe. You

1:02:39.320 --> 1:02:42.160
<v Speaker 1>look at a physics journal, now you've got seven people

1:02:42.520 --> 1:02:46.440
<v Speaker 1>co writing a paper on a title that nobody outside

1:02:46.440 --> 1:02:49.840
<v Speaker 1>physics can even understand what they're writing about. As disciplines age,

1:02:50.200 --> 1:02:55.560
<v Speaker 1>they narrow and the same things happens. You get specialists,

1:02:55.600 --> 1:02:57.840
<v Speaker 1>right So, and that's what's happened in finances. We have

1:02:57.960 --> 1:03:01.000
<v Speaker 1>lots of specialists. And that's not through just in academia.

1:03:01.000 --> 1:03:03.560
<v Speaker 1>It's happened in practice as well. The industry has matured,

1:03:03.680 --> 1:03:06.680
<v Speaker 1>it's matured and it's created specialists, and we've lost something

1:03:06.680 --> 1:03:09.400
<v Speaker 1>in the process. We've lost those generalists because when I

1:03:09.440 --> 1:03:12.480
<v Speaker 1>first started working with investment banks in the nineteen eighties,

1:03:12.520 --> 1:03:14.520
<v Speaker 1>I'd go into an investment bank and you'd have somebody

1:03:14.520 --> 1:03:17.240
<v Speaker 1>who has a bankerbody could talk about the theater. You

1:03:17.280 --> 1:03:20.080
<v Speaker 1>could talk about stock markets, you could talk about born markets,

1:03:20.120 --> 1:03:23.520
<v Speaker 1>you could talk about history. And I mean the old

1:03:23.560 --> 1:03:25.920
<v Speaker 1>notion of a renaissance man. I mean there were a

1:03:25.920 --> 1:03:30.200
<v Speaker 1>few of them around, and they brought perspective to discussions

1:03:30.280 --> 1:03:32.560
<v Speaker 1>that you don't have anymore. I've said in on banking

1:03:32.600 --> 1:03:35.640
<v Speaker 1>discussions we have it doesn't really smart people around the table,

1:03:36.000 --> 1:03:37.840
<v Speaker 1>but they're in an echo chamber where they talk to

1:03:37.840 --> 1:03:40.560
<v Speaker 1>each other in the little segment of the world, and

1:03:40.600 --> 1:03:44.400
<v Speaker 1>they've completely lost perspective. This guy is a biotech specialist.

1:03:44.480 --> 1:03:47.760
<v Speaker 1>That guy only the software. It's not like anybody who's

1:03:47.800 --> 1:03:50.560
<v Speaker 1>broad anymore. So I think we need some some you know.

1:03:50.920 --> 1:03:52.880
<v Speaker 1>My newest book is coming out in two months. It's

1:03:52.880 --> 1:03:56.680
<v Speaker 1>called Narrative and Numbers. It's about storytelling and valuation, because

1:03:56.720 --> 1:04:01.040
<v Speaker 1>to me, it's become all Excel, spread sheets and models

1:04:01.320 --> 1:04:04.920
<v Speaker 1>all the time. People have no sense of commons that

1:04:04.960 --> 1:04:07.160
<v Speaker 1>they're not bringing common sense and they're not bringing in

1:04:07.640 --> 1:04:10.080
<v Speaker 1>So the book I wrote was about how when I

1:04:10.120 --> 1:04:12.320
<v Speaker 1>do valuation. I start with a story for the company

1:04:12.320 --> 1:04:15.240
<v Speaker 1>with it's Tesla or Amazon, our doutsche bank, and the

1:04:15.360 --> 1:04:19.040
<v Speaker 1>valuation comes out of this story, rather than me sitting

1:04:19.040 --> 1:04:20.880
<v Speaker 1>in front of a spreadsheet and just making up numbers

1:04:20.880 --> 1:04:24.520
<v Speaker 1>as I go along. That's really that's really interesting. Let's

1:04:24.600 --> 1:04:28.800
<v Speaker 1>let's talk about the investors who influenced you. I referenced

1:04:29.000 --> 1:04:32.640
<v Speaker 1>some value investors who you said, Hey, that's old school,

1:04:32.680 --> 1:04:34.720
<v Speaker 1>and we don't know how well that works anymore. Who

1:04:34.760 --> 1:04:36.919
<v Speaker 1>are the investors who have influenced I learned a little

1:04:36.960 --> 1:04:40.439
<v Speaker 1>bit from everybody. I learned from Warren Buffett. I've learned

1:04:40.480 --> 1:04:43.360
<v Speaker 1>the importance of having a core philosophy that you go

1:04:43.440 --> 1:04:48.800
<v Speaker 1>back to when in doubt. The active money managers are

1:04:48.840 --> 1:04:51.680
<v Speaker 1>running to have no core philosophy, have investment strategies. You

1:04:51.720 --> 1:04:53.840
<v Speaker 1>ask them, what's your philosophy? They side by low ps

1:04:53.840 --> 1:04:57.280
<v Speaker 1>talks and I said, that's not a philosophy, that's a strategy.

1:04:57.520 --> 1:04:59.280
<v Speaker 1>And I think if you have a philosophy, it's a

1:04:59.320 --> 1:05:01.840
<v Speaker 1>way of thinking of about markets, thinking about how markets

1:05:01.880 --> 1:05:04.200
<v Speaker 1>make mistakes and why you should be able to take

1:05:04.240 --> 1:05:08.320
<v Speaker 1>advantage of mistakes. So I've learned from watching people like

1:05:08.360 --> 1:05:11.040
<v Speaker 1>Warren Buffett about how important it is to have a

1:05:11.080 --> 1:05:14.200
<v Speaker 1>core philosophy that is yours, that's not somebody else's, that

1:05:14.240 --> 1:05:17.840
<v Speaker 1>you can go back to. I've learned from Mike Mobuson

1:05:17.960 --> 1:05:21.160
<v Speaker 1>was one of my favorite people to talk because when

1:05:21.160 --> 1:05:24.200
<v Speaker 1>you talk about renaissance man, he's he's one of those, right.

1:05:24.200 --> 1:05:26.880
<v Speaker 1>He can talk about philosophy, can talk about psychology, can

1:05:26.880 --> 1:05:29.840
<v Speaker 1>talk about finance, you can talk. And I love talking

1:05:30.040 --> 1:05:33.680
<v Speaker 1>to him simply because he tells me things that I said.

1:05:33.720 --> 1:05:35.560
<v Speaker 1>You know what, I never thought about that it came

1:05:35.600 --> 1:05:38.800
<v Speaker 1>from a different discipline, but everything is kind of related.

1:05:39.600 --> 1:05:42.600
<v Speaker 1>I'll give an example. This summer, I was in Florence

1:05:42.680 --> 1:05:46.440
<v Speaker 1>and I was not that you've got the Bruno Leski

1:05:46.640 --> 1:05:50.280
<v Speaker 1>Dome in Florence is amazing dome. And I was looking

1:05:50.280 --> 1:05:52.200
<v Speaker 1>at the dome in my As I was looking at

1:05:52.200 --> 1:05:54.000
<v Speaker 1>the dome, I was thinking about the fact that Bruno

1:05:54.040 --> 1:05:56.440
<v Speaker 1>Leski was He was an artist he loved and this

1:05:56.640 --> 1:06:00.680
<v Speaker 1>dome required huge amounts of science and architecture, and he

1:06:00.800 --> 1:06:03.000
<v Speaker 1>taught himself enough that he was able to build the dome.

1:06:04.000 --> 1:06:06.520
<v Speaker 1>And I thought about how he was willing to leave

1:06:06.760 --> 1:06:11.280
<v Speaker 1>his preferred habitat and go into these areas because he

1:06:11.400 --> 1:06:15.479
<v Speaker 1>had to be multi skilled, and how much we need

1:06:15.680 --> 1:06:19.200
<v Speaker 1>more people like that who leave their preferred habitat and

1:06:19.280 --> 1:06:22.400
<v Speaker 1>move into areas that don't come easily to them and

1:06:22.440 --> 1:06:25.200
<v Speaker 1>try at least to get conversant with those areas out

1:06:25.200 --> 1:06:28.400
<v Speaker 1>of their comfort zone, learn a new new discipline, and

1:06:28.400 --> 1:06:32.520
<v Speaker 1>then bring it back to where you start. Um. Everybody

1:06:33.040 --> 1:06:36.040
<v Speaker 1>loves this question. What are some of your favorite books?

1:06:36.600 --> 1:06:39.800
<v Speaker 1>Be they abound, investing, fiction, non fiction, it doesn't matter.

1:06:40.440 --> 1:06:43.360
<v Speaker 1>I do. I mean I read. I've read Ben Graham,

1:06:43.760 --> 1:06:47.760
<v Speaker 1>and I read it with a very different lens than

1:06:47.920 --> 1:06:50.600
<v Speaker 1>most people. I don't read it for the techniques. Let's face,

1:06:50.720 --> 1:06:54.280
<v Speaker 1>Ben Graham valued stocks as of their were bonds too.

1:06:54.480 --> 1:06:57.680
<v Speaker 1>He was a natural fixed income guy who thought about

1:06:57.680 --> 1:06:59.360
<v Speaker 1>how do I make a stock look like a bond?

1:06:59.680 --> 1:07:02.760
<v Speaker 1>So of dividends with the equivalent of coupons. But what

1:07:02.840 --> 1:07:05.640
<v Speaker 1>I get out of is a philosophy about investing, which

1:07:05.720 --> 1:07:08.200
<v Speaker 1>is you've got to have the essence of values, faith

1:07:08.240 --> 1:07:10.640
<v Speaker 1>that you if you believe that something is worth something,

1:07:10.760 --> 1:07:13.920
<v Speaker 1>you shouldn't be letting the price system provide your feedback

1:07:13.960 --> 1:07:18.480
<v Speaker 1>and change your So I like I like security analysis.

1:07:18.680 --> 1:07:22.560
<v Speaker 1>Evaluation is a faith based exercisectly it's a faith based

1:07:22.640 --> 1:07:25.120
<v Speaker 1>exercise because you have to faith in your value and

1:07:25.240 --> 1:07:27.680
<v Speaker 1>faith that the market will correct its mistakes. And it's

1:07:27.720 --> 1:07:30.440
<v Speaker 1>faith because you ask me for proof or either I

1:07:30.480 --> 1:07:32.920
<v Speaker 1>can offer you nothing. Well, isn't that where mean reversion

1:07:32.960 --> 1:07:37.760
<v Speaker 1>comes in? Hey, it's always eventually return to it always

1:07:37.840 --> 1:07:41.400
<v Speaker 1>is what I don't historically. And see that's the problem

1:07:41.440 --> 1:07:43.680
<v Speaker 1>is you ask me for guarantees. I can offer you data.

1:07:43.720 --> 1:07:45.720
<v Speaker 1>I can offer you the past. But if you say

1:07:45.880 --> 1:07:48.000
<v Speaker 1>is that going to happen for sure? And say I don't.

1:07:48.120 --> 1:07:53.640
<v Speaker 1>So it's history plus faith equals future performance. That was saying, So,

1:07:53.640 --> 1:07:56.760
<v Speaker 1>so what other books do you like? Um? I like?

1:07:57.880 --> 1:08:00.360
<v Speaker 1>And this is going to be off kilter. I called

1:08:00.440 --> 1:08:04.960
<v Speaker 1>David Liss, who writes books, their novels L I S

1:08:04.960 --> 1:08:09.400
<v Speaker 1>T l I S S. And one of his books

1:08:09.400 --> 1:08:11.840
<v Speaker 1>was A Conspiracy of Paper. It's a it's a book

1:08:11.880 --> 1:08:16.160
<v Speaker 1>set in the days after the south Sea Bubble in London.

1:08:16.200 --> 1:08:18.840
<v Speaker 1>It's a novel around that and it talks about how

1:08:18.840 --> 1:08:21.719
<v Speaker 1>the bubble was created. Like people, so what would happen

1:08:21.840 --> 1:08:24.360
<v Speaker 1>is south Sea Bubble is of course this this company

1:08:24.400 --> 1:08:27.200
<v Speaker 1>that was created which really not for a purpose to

1:08:27.280 --> 1:08:31.160
<v Speaker 1>be determined, for purpose to be determined, and it was there.

1:08:31.280 --> 1:08:33.280
<v Speaker 1>It was a bubble in the sense people bought into

1:08:33.280 --> 1:08:35.760
<v Speaker 1>the story and the price went up and collapsed. But

1:08:35.840 --> 1:08:38.920
<v Speaker 1>he talked about how the people running the company would

1:08:38.920 --> 1:08:43.000
<v Speaker 1>send people out to to two bars or you know,

1:08:43.640 --> 1:08:48.439
<v Speaker 1>and two taverns and whispered to other people about what

1:08:48.840 --> 1:08:51.800
<v Speaker 1>was private information, but whisper loud enough that other people

1:08:51.840 --> 1:08:54.479
<v Speaker 1>could hear them. It was your CNBC of its death.

1:08:54.560 --> 1:08:56.920
<v Speaker 1>It was I was gonna say, the first investor relationships

1:08:57.080 --> 1:09:00.479
<v Speaker 1>exactly right. So it's so basically as I was reading it,

1:09:00.520 --> 1:09:02.479
<v Speaker 1>I was talking about I was thinking about how little.

1:09:02.640 --> 1:09:07.080
<v Speaker 1>So it's incredibly descriptive about how markets work then and

1:09:07.240 --> 1:09:11.120
<v Speaker 1>how rumors got spread and how bubbles God created. And

1:09:11.880 --> 1:09:15.200
<v Speaker 1>to me, when I look at how about, not much

1:09:15.240 --> 1:09:18.639
<v Speaker 1>has changed, right, So, David Less conspiracy of paper, David

1:09:18.720 --> 1:09:21.320
<v Speaker 1>List conspiracy. You know a lot of the classic books

1:09:21.520 --> 1:09:26.960
<v Speaker 1>fifty two hundred years old. They Richard Wykoff had a book,

1:09:27.000 --> 1:09:30.760
<v Speaker 1>I think, How I Trade Stocks and Bonds, And if

1:09:30.760 --> 1:09:33.679
<v Speaker 1>you opened it up today and substitute of the word

1:09:33.680 --> 1:09:38.559
<v Speaker 1>internet for telegram and and the word railroad for shipping,

1:09:39.720 --> 1:09:43.040
<v Speaker 1>it would be no different than the lettle More books, right,

1:09:43.080 --> 1:09:45.960
<v Speaker 1>I mean the madness of crowds. I mean there's I

1:09:46.400 --> 1:09:50.759
<v Speaker 1>actually don't read much current stuff. I like Michael Lewis

1:09:51.040 --> 1:09:53.720
<v Speaker 1>why because he can spend a great story everything. I

1:09:53.760 --> 1:09:56.640
<v Speaker 1>don't think quite by it, because you can tell that

1:09:56.920 --> 1:09:59.800
<v Speaker 1>he's such a good story writer that he has an agenda.

1:10:00.040 --> 1:10:02.360
<v Speaker 1>He wants to go along with that agenda. So I

1:10:02.400 --> 1:10:05.439
<v Speaker 1>try to fight it, whether it's Moneyball or flash Moneyball

1:10:05.520 --> 1:10:07.360
<v Speaker 1>is hard to fight. It's it's hard to fight because

1:10:07.400 --> 1:10:08.760
<v Speaker 1>the end of it is saying we should all be

1:10:08.800 --> 1:10:11.720
<v Speaker 1>doing it, but then we've discovered the downside. Well, once

1:10:11.760 --> 1:10:14.519
<v Speaker 1>every that goes back to Charlie Ellis, once we're all

1:10:14.520 --> 1:10:18.360
<v Speaker 1>doing it, the competitive advantage goes goes away, right, So

1:10:18.920 --> 1:10:21.320
<v Speaker 1>so I love Michael Lewis for that reason. I like

1:10:21.479 --> 1:10:24.920
<v Speaker 1>James Stewart for all of the Barbarians, Barbarians of the

1:10:24.960 --> 1:10:28.559
<v Speaker 1>Gate and the book, and so I like reading not

1:10:28.840 --> 1:10:33.719
<v Speaker 1>so dry. I read very few books which are about

1:10:33.720 --> 1:10:35.720
<v Speaker 1>how to get rich quickly. I don't read any of

1:10:35.720 --> 1:10:39.600
<v Speaker 1>the Warren Buffett. There's always more lessons in the failures.

1:10:39.960 --> 1:10:43.880
<v Speaker 1>When genius failed. That's that's one of the books I

1:10:43.880 --> 1:10:47.800
<v Speaker 1>should have mass and then Bethany McLean's Smartest Guys in

1:10:47.840 --> 1:10:50.960
<v Speaker 1>the room about Enron. The lessons are in the failures,

1:10:51.000 --> 1:10:54.200
<v Speaker 1>not the lesson I'm looking for. To me, the big

1:10:54.640 --> 1:10:56.839
<v Speaker 1>there are two things that get me into trouble investing.

1:10:56.840 --> 1:10:59.640
<v Speaker 1>One is hubris, the second is over confidence. The two

1:10:59.680 --> 1:11:03.120
<v Speaker 1>are right. Any book that reminds me that hubris and

1:11:03.160 --> 1:11:07.280
<v Speaker 1>over confidence historically have been set ups for disaster is

1:11:07.320 --> 1:11:10.960
<v Speaker 1>a good reminder for me, right, because it's so easy

1:11:11.000 --> 1:11:13.719
<v Speaker 1>to get caught up in I know more than everybody else.

1:11:13.760 --> 1:11:17.439
<v Speaker 1>I can put stuff into martws and not recognize how

1:11:17.520 --> 1:11:22.840
<v Speaker 1>much of this stuff you don't control. No doubt about that. Um. So,

1:11:23.040 --> 1:11:25.360
<v Speaker 1>this is a question that comes from a reader. You

1:11:25.400 --> 1:11:28.800
<v Speaker 1>mentioned tennis. What do you do to keep mentally and

1:11:29.160 --> 1:11:32.000
<v Speaker 1>or physically fit? What do you do to relax outside

1:11:32.000 --> 1:11:35.559
<v Speaker 1>of the office? You know what? As I walk around

1:11:35.560 --> 1:11:41.000
<v Speaker 1>New York, I get valuation cues almost everywhere, which is,

1:11:41.040 --> 1:11:42.680
<v Speaker 1>you know, I'm looking at things and I'm trying to

1:11:42.760 --> 1:11:45.919
<v Speaker 1>generalize from it. So to me, everything has some lessons

1:11:46.000 --> 1:11:48.639
<v Speaker 1>for me in investing. Whether I'm at a ball game

1:11:48.720 --> 1:11:50.840
<v Speaker 1>and I remember that we're going to a Yankee game

1:11:50.920 --> 1:11:52.880
<v Speaker 1>and watching the This was in two thousand nine, with

1:11:53.000 --> 1:11:55.799
<v Speaker 1>the New Yankee Citium. I took my kids and watching

1:11:55.920 --> 1:11:58.639
<v Speaker 1>the Yankees run onto the field, and I'm thinking about

1:11:58.720 --> 1:12:01.840
<v Speaker 1>least commitments and debt because what I'm thinking what I'm seeing,

1:12:01.880 --> 1:12:04.240
<v Speaker 1>you know, Mark to Shara run out of first based

1:12:04.240 --> 1:12:07.439
<v Speaker 1>seven years at twenty three million. Actually, I took the

1:12:07.479 --> 1:12:09.479
<v Speaker 1>present value of commitments and in the infield and it

1:12:09.479 --> 1:12:11.880
<v Speaker 1>came up with seven hundred million dollars of commitments and said,

1:12:11.880 --> 1:12:13.720
<v Speaker 1>if I were buying the Yankees, this is a dead

1:12:13.760 --> 1:12:16.080
<v Speaker 1>issue that I should be worrying about it. So to me,

1:12:16.240 --> 1:12:18.759
<v Speaker 1>life is full of lessons. That's why the brunal Lesky

1:12:18.840 --> 1:12:21.280
<v Speaker 1>Dome was a typical example. I'm looking at things and

1:12:21.280 --> 1:12:23.680
<v Speaker 1>I'm saying, what can I learn about my Because to

1:12:23.720 --> 1:12:26.320
<v Speaker 1>be a successful investor, I don't need to understand how

1:12:26.320 --> 1:12:29.000
<v Speaker 1>Warren Buffett invest and how I need to understand what

1:12:29.160 --> 1:12:32.640
<v Speaker 1>makes me tech, what makes me comfortable, what makes me uncomfortable.

1:12:33.040 --> 1:12:35.640
<v Speaker 1>So I'm constantly looking for feedback from the world that

1:12:35.680 --> 1:12:38.880
<v Speaker 1>I can use to kind of look inside myself, because

1:12:38.880 --> 1:12:41.240
<v Speaker 1>self delusion is so easy when you're an investor. So

1:12:41.280 --> 1:12:43.760
<v Speaker 1>that's that's a little bit of Peter Lynch. You know,

1:12:43.880 --> 1:12:47.920
<v Speaker 1>invest what you know. Although the self delusion issue I'm

1:12:47.960 --> 1:12:52.519
<v Speaker 1>always wrestling with I remember the middle of the financial crisis.

1:12:52.600 --> 1:12:56.040
<v Speaker 1>You can walk into any Manhattan right restaurant, no reservation,

1:12:57.000 --> 1:12:59.760
<v Speaker 1>best seat in the house, it didn't matter. It was empty.

1:13:00.120 --> 1:13:02.960
<v Speaker 1>But then when things started to take pick up again,

1:13:03.000 --> 1:13:06.719
<v Speaker 1>and if you mid by middle nine, everybody weren't back

1:13:06.760 --> 1:13:10.040
<v Speaker 1>to normal, but things were normalizing. But that's in Manhattan

1:13:10.080 --> 1:13:13.280
<v Speaker 1>where there was a trillion dollar bail out. A lot

1:13:13.280 --> 1:13:16.559
<v Speaker 1>of it passed through this part of the country. There's

1:13:16.600 --> 1:13:20.439
<v Speaker 1>a risk that our perspective in this little island off

1:13:20.479 --> 1:13:22.840
<v Speaker 1>the east coast of America is huge. And I think

1:13:22.880 --> 1:13:25.360
<v Speaker 1>when you look at things like Brexit, it should be

1:13:25.400 --> 1:13:28.880
<v Speaker 1>a warning sign that we've lost perspective. Right we are,

1:13:28.920 --> 1:13:30.960
<v Speaker 1>So it's easy in New York to say, well, this

1:13:31.040 --> 1:13:33.519
<v Speaker 1>company should do this, We should be doing this on

1:13:34.400 --> 1:13:38.960
<v Speaker 1>India aggregate incrementally, this is good for the country. What

1:13:38.960 --> 1:13:42.559
<v Speaker 1>we're forgetting that's the average exactly. And we're talking about

1:13:42.600 --> 1:13:47.559
<v Speaker 1>a fifty five year old steelworker in Pennsylvania. He gets

1:13:47.600 --> 1:13:50.360
<v Speaker 1>little consolation out of the fact that free trade is

1:13:50.400 --> 1:13:53.160
<v Speaker 1>going to create more world world when he says, where

1:13:53.160 --> 1:13:55.559
<v Speaker 1>the heck am I going to get my paycheck next month?

1:13:55.960 --> 1:13:58.200
<v Speaker 1>And I think politically, when you look at what's happening

1:13:58.200 --> 1:14:02.720
<v Speaker 1>around the world. We're paying a price for almost deliberate

1:14:02.920 --> 1:14:05.920
<v Speaker 1>blindness in the financial capitals of the world, the kind

1:14:05.920 --> 1:14:08.600
<v Speaker 1>of cost that are being created in the rest of

1:14:08.640 --> 1:14:12.599
<v Speaker 1>the country sometimes And and to me, that was in Brexit,

1:14:12.640 --> 1:14:15.200
<v Speaker 1>when you saw the divide between London and the rest

1:14:15.439 --> 1:14:19.719
<v Speaker 1>of the UK. In London, what was a sent voting

1:14:19.760 --> 1:14:23.120
<v Speaker 1>against Brexit? It was a signal of how big the

1:14:23.200 --> 1:14:27.439
<v Speaker 1>divide is between how the financial sector sometimes looks at

1:14:27.479 --> 1:14:30.160
<v Speaker 1>things and how the rest of the market is looking

1:14:30.200 --> 1:14:33.320
<v Speaker 1>at those same things. And I also think that folks

1:14:33.400 --> 1:14:36.360
<v Speaker 1>like you and I, who tend to be rational and

1:14:36.400 --> 1:14:40.080
<v Speaker 1>tend to be data driven, assume everybody else in the

1:14:40.080 --> 1:14:43.080
<v Speaker 1>world is rational. And sometimes people you know, you talk

1:14:43.160 --> 1:14:46.000
<v Speaker 1>to people who voted against Brexit, and you could demonstrate

1:14:46.040 --> 1:14:49.160
<v Speaker 1>for them this is gonna hurt not just London, not

1:14:49.280 --> 1:14:52.320
<v Speaker 1>just England. This will ultimately hurt you. You will have

1:14:52.400 --> 1:14:55.080
<v Speaker 1>less wealth because of it. And the answers I don't care.

1:14:55.120 --> 1:14:58.920
<v Speaker 1>I have to what the current situation is unacceptable. I

1:14:58.960 --> 1:15:01.960
<v Speaker 1>had to vote my protests And in fact that's why

1:15:01.960 --> 1:15:04.200
<v Speaker 1>I wrote the book on Storytelling a number crunching. I said,

1:15:04.200 --> 1:15:06.439
<v Speaker 1>if you have a valuation, all you present his numbers.

1:15:06.479 --> 1:15:09.040
<v Speaker 1>People will forget fifteen minutes after you leave the room.

1:15:09.240 --> 1:15:12.160
<v Speaker 1>But the stories, the story stays, The story stays. And

1:15:12.240 --> 1:15:15.040
<v Speaker 1>that's why I've had to incorporate my teaching, because when

1:15:15.040 --> 1:15:17.240
<v Speaker 1>I first started teaching, I taught like a number cruncher,

1:15:17.600 --> 1:15:20.080
<v Speaker 1>all numbers, all the time. And I learned that if

1:15:20.080 --> 1:15:22.880
<v Speaker 1>people want the things that people I have students have

1:15:22.960 --> 1:15:25.160
<v Speaker 1>been at that thirty one years and the things that

1:15:25.160 --> 1:15:27.400
<v Speaker 1>I remember from my class, and not the numbers that

1:15:27.439 --> 1:15:30.000
<v Speaker 1>they talked about, but a story I might have toldn anecdote.

1:15:30.600 --> 1:15:35.000
<v Speaker 1>So the power of emotions is huge in this process.

1:15:35.040 --> 1:15:39.280
<v Speaker 1>We've evolved to tell stories long before there was written language.

1:15:39.680 --> 1:15:43.880
<v Speaker 1>Stories are memorable, and that's not an accident, it's it's

1:15:43.880 --> 1:15:47.160
<v Speaker 1>actually built in um. So what do you do to

1:15:47.160 --> 1:15:50.360
<v Speaker 1>to to stay physically and mentally fit? What do you

1:15:50.400 --> 1:15:54.519
<v Speaker 1>do outside of work? I run, I watched a movie.

1:15:54.600 --> 1:15:57.080
<v Speaker 1>I still play tennis. I still play tennis, and not

1:15:57.240 --> 1:15:58.920
<v Speaker 1>as much as i'd like to because I don't like

1:15:59.200 --> 1:16:01.559
<v Speaker 1>to play indoors, so that means I'm restricted to bang.

1:16:01.600 --> 1:16:04.400
<v Speaker 1>And one reason I will probably moved to California sooner

1:16:04.479 --> 1:16:07.080
<v Speaker 1>or later is because I can play tennis all the time.

1:16:07.479 --> 1:16:11.040
<v Speaker 1>Down the street and outside. Um, I gotta work on

1:16:11.080 --> 1:16:14.679
<v Speaker 1>my forehand. My backhand is good. My forehand is actually

1:16:14.720 --> 1:16:17.240
<v Speaker 1>for me to reverse back hands. You can groove in

1:16:17.360 --> 1:16:19.280
<v Speaker 1>much better. And once you get into the back end, right,

1:16:19.800 --> 1:16:21.920
<v Speaker 1>That's what I'm saying. My back hand is fine. I

1:16:21.960 --> 1:16:25.559
<v Speaker 1>got I'm also a lefty. There's actually an investment lesson

1:16:25.640 --> 1:16:28.120
<v Speaker 1>in that too. The reason your forehand gives you more

1:16:28.120 --> 1:16:31.320
<v Speaker 1>trouble is you try more stuff. There's more you try

1:16:31.520 --> 1:16:34.879
<v Speaker 1>big stuff, there's more stuff that you're supposed to just stroking.

1:16:35.760 --> 1:16:39.080
<v Speaker 1>And the same thing in investing. More activity often hurts

1:16:39.280 --> 1:16:41.679
<v Speaker 1>you in investing when you try to do too much,

1:16:42.160 --> 1:16:46.080
<v Speaker 1>and sometimes doing the more natural thing and not forcing

1:16:46.160 --> 1:16:48.920
<v Speaker 1>more activity is the best thing you can do. And tennis,

1:16:48.960 --> 1:16:51.200
<v Speaker 1>that shows up as your forehand versus your back hand. Right,

1:16:51.240 --> 1:16:54.479
<v Speaker 1>I like you, I'm backwards. My forehand is better. The

1:16:54.600 --> 1:16:58.800
<v Speaker 1>last two questions, UM, you work with a lot of

1:16:58.840 --> 1:17:02.439
<v Speaker 1>millennials and college students. Someone comes to you and says, hey,

1:17:02.479 --> 1:17:04.960
<v Speaker 1>I'm thinking about going into finance as a career. What

1:17:05.080 --> 1:17:07.000
<v Speaker 1>sort of advice do you give them? I asked them

1:17:07.000 --> 1:17:11.040
<v Speaker 1>why why? Because why do you want to go on

1:17:11.120 --> 1:17:12.800
<v Speaker 1>to find it? And if their answer is because I

1:17:12.840 --> 1:17:14.760
<v Speaker 1>think I can make more money. I said, come back

1:17:14.800 --> 1:17:16.760
<v Speaker 1>with a better reason and then we'll talk about this,

1:17:16.880 --> 1:17:20.799
<v Speaker 1>because I think especially the subset of finance, it's investment, banking,

1:17:20.840 --> 1:17:23.320
<v Speaker 1>and consulting. The reality is, and I see this. My

1:17:23.400 --> 1:17:26.920
<v Speaker 1>forecasts are all as I said, no grown up, but

1:17:27.240 --> 1:17:29.880
<v Speaker 1>my seventeen year old is thinking about going to college.

1:17:29.880 --> 1:17:32.800
<v Speaker 1>He's an amazing writer. He writes poetry that doesn't drive

1:17:32.920 --> 1:17:35.720
<v Speaker 1>something that's beyond my comprehend because to me, poetry means

1:17:35.720 --> 1:17:37.960
<v Speaker 1>the last word should always rhyme. He's a poet. He's

1:17:38.000 --> 1:17:41.720
<v Speaker 1>a great writer. And he came to me and said, Dad,

1:17:41.760 --> 1:17:44.920
<v Speaker 1>you know, I really love writing, but I think I

1:17:44.920 --> 1:17:47.400
<v Speaker 1>should be going to a business school. And I said

1:17:47.439 --> 1:17:50.519
<v Speaker 1>why and he said, well, that's how you can make money.

1:17:51.120 --> 1:17:53.120
<v Speaker 1>I want. I want to end up in banking and

1:17:53.120 --> 1:17:55.920
<v Speaker 1>make money like everybody else. And I said, you know, so,

1:17:57.720 --> 1:18:00.120
<v Speaker 1>it's a terrible way to structure your life. I mean,

1:18:00.120 --> 1:18:02.200
<v Speaker 1>if you're going to go into finance, do it because

1:18:02.479 --> 1:18:06.760
<v Speaker 1>you like being in finance. You like doing valuation in them.

1:18:06.800 --> 1:18:09.640
<v Speaker 1>And I think that that's I think the key to

1:18:09.720 --> 1:18:11.360
<v Speaker 1>me is I think a lot of people are in

1:18:11.439 --> 1:18:14.639
<v Speaker 1>finance and finance for exactly the wrong reasons and finance

1:18:14.680 --> 1:18:16.840
<v Speaker 1>because this is what they don't like what they're doing.

1:18:17.960 --> 1:18:20.280
<v Speaker 1>They don't enjoy it. It's not part of their solf.

1:18:20.320 --> 1:18:22.920
<v Speaker 1>I mean, it's so to me. If they say that

1:18:22.960 --> 1:18:26.479
<v Speaker 1>it's beyond money, then ask them what do you enjoy doing?

1:18:26.520 --> 1:18:29.080
<v Speaker 1>Do you enjoy working on short term projects where you

1:18:29.120 --> 1:18:31.000
<v Speaker 1>get a quick payoff or do you like working on

1:18:31.040 --> 1:18:33.360
<v Speaker 1>something long term? Because that tells me whether they're better

1:18:33.400 --> 1:18:36.760
<v Speaker 1>suited for a dealmaking job like M and A, or

1:18:36.760 --> 1:18:39.080
<v Speaker 1>whether they're more suited to a consulting job you work

1:18:39.080 --> 1:18:41.960
<v Speaker 1>with a client for multiple years. Because finance is such

1:18:42.000 --> 1:18:44.000
<v Speaker 1>a big area that I can find a place for

1:18:44.040 --> 1:18:46.040
<v Speaker 1>you depending on what your skill set is, what you

1:18:46.120 --> 1:18:49.840
<v Speaker 1>enjoy doing. And our final question, what is it that

1:18:49.880 --> 1:18:54.160
<v Speaker 1>you know about valuation and investing today that you wish

1:18:54.160 --> 1:18:57.679
<v Speaker 1>you knew thirty years ago when you started teaching That

1:18:59.760 --> 1:19:03.240
<v Speaker 1>I can be horribly wrong and be okay with it.

1:19:03.320 --> 1:19:05.400
<v Speaker 1>I used to be afraid to be wrong, so I

1:19:05.400 --> 1:19:08.280
<v Speaker 1>would pick companies where you're less likely to be wrong.

1:19:09.000 --> 1:19:11.040
<v Speaker 1>I'm okay now with being wrong, and I know it's

1:19:11.040 --> 1:19:14.599
<v Speaker 1>not necessarily my fault. It's the there's so many things

1:19:14.640 --> 1:19:17.160
<v Speaker 1>out of my control, and I think I've understood how

1:19:17.240 --> 1:19:20.320
<v Speaker 1>much luck is the dominant paradigm in this business, much

1:19:20.320 --> 1:19:22.599
<v Speaker 1>as we'd like to tell the world that it's skillful

1:19:22.640 --> 1:19:25.360
<v Speaker 1>people to make money and this is a game. Or

1:19:25.400 --> 1:19:28.000
<v Speaker 1>if you're lucky, you can do some really crappy stuff

1:19:28.040 --> 1:19:29.840
<v Speaker 1>and get away with it, and if you're not, you

1:19:29.840 --> 1:19:33.400
<v Speaker 1>can do everything right and still and still end up

1:19:33.400 --> 1:19:37.439
<v Speaker 1>losing money. So I've learned to be okay with people

1:19:37.720 --> 1:19:40.120
<v Speaker 1>who invest off the seat of their pants, invest based

1:19:40.160 --> 1:19:43.200
<v Speaker 1>on astrological science. If it works for them, it works

1:19:43.200 --> 1:19:46.000
<v Speaker 1>for them. If you look use charts, if you can

1:19:46.040 --> 1:19:48.840
<v Speaker 1>make money doing whatever you're doing, Who am I to

1:19:48.880 --> 1:19:51.080
<v Speaker 1>come in and say that's a bad way of making money.

1:19:51.080 --> 1:19:52.720
<v Speaker 1>Because you make a million dollars and I make a

1:19:52.760 --> 1:19:55.720
<v Speaker 1>million dollars, we spend it the same way. So why

1:19:55.760 --> 1:19:57.920
<v Speaker 1>does it matter that I make a million off long

1:19:58.080 --> 1:20:00.840
<v Speaker 1>term investing based on value and you may chamillion based

1:20:00.880 --> 1:20:04.880
<v Speaker 1>on supporting resistance lines. Well, the question is is it

1:20:05.000 --> 1:20:09.080
<v Speaker 1>luck or repeatable? You know, the worst thing that happens

1:20:09.120 --> 1:20:11.800
<v Speaker 1>to somebody is they walk into a casino, they win money,

1:20:11.920 --> 1:20:14.840
<v Speaker 1>or the first goofy stocks they buy makes money, and

1:20:14.840 --> 1:20:18.639
<v Speaker 1>they keep looking for that same sort of It's the process,

1:20:18.720 --> 1:20:21.400
<v Speaker 1>not the outcome exactly, and you have to enjoy the process.

1:20:21.400 --> 1:20:23.240
<v Speaker 1>And I tell people here's a very simple test and

1:20:23.240 --> 1:20:25.320
<v Speaker 1>whether you should be an active investor. Let's say you

1:20:25.360 --> 1:20:27.880
<v Speaker 1>get to be eighty five year in your deathbed, I

1:20:27.920 --> 1:20:29.800
<v Speaker 1>come and ask you. I come and ask you about it.

1:20:29.800 --> 1:20:31.920
<v Speaker 1>You've been an active investor for sixty years and you've

1:20:31.920 --> 1:20:33.960
<v Speaker 1>actually made a nine percent return, and you could have

1:20:33.960 --> 1:20:36.599
<v Speaker 1>made nine and a half percent investing in an index fund.

1:20:37.880 --> 1:20:40.080
<v Speaker 1>So come and ask you whether you regret having spent

1:20:40.120 --> 1:20:44.080
<v Speaker 1>a lifetime trying to pick stocks. If your answer is yes,

1:20:44.760 --> 1:20:48.320
<v Speaker 1>my suggestion is you don't be an active investor because

1:20:48.600 --> 1:20:51.719
<v Speaker 1>I invest actively, not because I hope to be rewarded.

1:20:51.800 --> 1:20:54.400
<v Speaker 1>I invest actively because I truly enjoy this. It's a

1:20:54.479 --> 1:20:58.519
<v Speaker 1>process that you like absolutely. Professor Domadaran, this has been

1:20:58.760 --> 1:21:02.679
<v Speaker 1>absolutely fascinating. Thank you for being so generous with your time.

1:21:03.240 --> 1:21:06.360
<v Speaker 1>We've been speaking with n y U Sterns, professor of

1:21:06.920 --> 1:21:12.639
<v Speaker 1>finance who specializes in valuation. Professor Aswa Doma Dorn. If

1:21:12.720 --> 1:21:15.400
<v Speaker 1>you enjoy this conversation, be sure and look up an

1:21:15.400 --> 1:21:18.400
<v Speaker 1>inch or down an inch on iTunes and you'll see

1:21:18.920 --> 1:21:22.479
<v Speaker 1>all of the other hundred and ten or so uh

1:21:22.800 --> 1:21:25.880
<v Speaker 1>conversations we've had. I would be remiss if I did

1:21:25.960 --> 1:21:30.160
<v Speaker 1>not forget. Thank my booker Taylor Riggs, my recording engineer,

1:21:30.240 --> 1:21:34.559
<v Speaker 1>Charlie Vollmer, and my head of research Michael bat Nick.

1:21:34.680 --> 1:21:36.840
<v Speaker 1>Be sure and send us an email and tell us

1:21:37.120 --> 1:21:39.960
<v Speaker 1>what you would like to hear more of m IB

1:21:40.160 --> 1:21:44.800
<v Speaker 1>podcast at Bloomberg dot net. I'm Barry rid Halts. You've

1:21:44.800 --> 1:21:54.759
<v Speaker 1>been listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio, brought

1:21:54.800 --> 1:21:57.599
<v Speaker 1>to you by Bank of America. Merrill Lynch. Seeing what

1:21:57.720 --> 1:22:01.320
<v Speaker 1>others have seen, but uncovering what others may not. Global

1:22:01.400 --> 1:22:05.040
<v Speaker 1>research that helps you harness disruption. Voted top global research

1:22:05.080 --> 1:22:08.519
<v Speaker 1>firm five years running. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Finner and Smith

1:22:08.560 --> 1:22:09.280
<v Speaker 1>Incorporated