Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Chuck Akre explains his iconic Three-Legged Stool investing framework. The three business characteristics that together drive incredible long-term investment returns. Leg #1: Exceptional Business • Enduring, predictable high ROE & FCF • Identifiable, sustainable competitive advantages • Pricing power and inflation protection • Easy to understand • Avoid return-regulated...

Quartr_App's profile picture

Quartr

151,324 subscribers

143,132 views • 3 years ago •via X (Twitter)

FinanceScience & TechnologyEducation
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

9 Comments

Pedro Ortiz's profile picture
Pedro Ortiz3 years ago

So easy and so difficult at the same time...

Quartr's profile picture
Quartr3 years ago

Exactly!

Foxy the cat's profile picture
Foxy the cat3 years ago

This is an excellent talk. Thanks!

Quality&Alpha 💹 📈 💸's profile picture
Quality&Alpha 💹 📈 💸3 years ago

Astonishing work, my friend!!

TangerineCap's profile picture
TangerineCap3 years ago

Chuck has one of the best investment approaches and his success speaks for itself. He should be required reading for every investor.

Quartr's profile picture
Quartr3 years ago

We couldn’t agree more!

ryan's profile picture
ryan3 years ago

Chuck Akre is definitely an investing idol of mine

Pratik Kodial's profile picture
Pratik Kodial3 years ago

This never gets old.. great share!!

Tadele Gelan's profile picture
Tadele Gelan3 years ago

Great piece of advice. Thank you for sharing.

Related Videos

INTRODUCTION TO THE STOCK MARKET The stock market is a place where individuals and institutions buy and sell ownership in companies (called shares or stocks). When you buy a share, you’re essentially buying a small piece of that company and participating in its growth, profits, and risks. People invest in the stock market to grow wealth over time, earn dividends, protect against inflation, and build long-term financial security. Unlike short-term trading, investing focuses on patience, discipline, and owning quality businesses. --- INTRODUCTION TO THE NIGERIAN STOCK MARKET (NGX) The Nigerian Exchange Group (NGX) is Nigeria’s official stock exchange, where publicly listed Nigerian companies trade their shares. It hosts banks, telecoms, industrial firms, consumer goods companies, oil & gas firms, and more. Through the NGX, everyday Nigerians can own parts of companies like banks, manufacturing firms, telecom operators, and other major businesses driving the economy. Returns come from: Capital appreciation (share price increases) Dividends (cash payouts from profits) The NGX is regulated, structured, and accessible to both local and foreign investors through licensed platforms. --- HOW TO GET STARTED INVESTING IN NGX (TWO SIMPLE WAYS) Today, you don’t need to walk into a stockbroking office. You can get started fully online using digital investment platforms. Below are two popular and easy options that I personally use; --- 1) GETTING STARTED WITH BAMBOO Bamboo Bamboo is a digital investment app that allows Nigerians to invest in Nigerian stocks (NGX) and foreign stocks. Steps to get started: 1. Download the Bamboo app from the App Store or Google Play. 2. Create an account with your email and phone number. 3. Complete KYC verification Input your BVN Provide personal details 4. Fund your wallet via bank transfer. 5. Search for Nigerian stocks listed on NGX and place your first buy order. 👉 Referral code: ngxinvestor Bamboo is beginner-friendly and suitable for people who want a simple interface and access to both local and global markets. When done with registration to buy stocks on Bamboo,select the " Invest " icon on the bottom part of the screen,you will see that you can invest in USD or Naira assets,click on Naira,then select NG stocks,search for the stock of your choice and buy --- 2) GETTING STARTED WITH I-INVEST i-invest I-Invest is an official platform that allows Nigerians to invest in Nigerian stocks, Commercial Papers,Mutual Funds,USD Bonds etc... Steps to get started: 1. Visit the I-Invest website or download the app on App Store or Google Play. 2. Create an account 3. Complete required KYC documentation: BVN Valid ID Bank details Proof of Address etc... 4. Fund your account. 5. Start buying NGX-listed stocks directly through the app. 👉 Referral code: 22406 I-Invest is ideal for investors who want more Investment options because you can also invest in fixed deposit notes, commercial papers,USD Bonds ,life insurance etc.. After registration to buy shares ,click on " Invest " then select " Equities " ,then search the company of your choice then select "buy equities" --- FINAL NOTES FOR BEGINNERS Start small and grow with experience. Focus on learning before chasing quick profits. Invest in businesses you understand. Think long-term, not overnight success. The most important step is starting — clarity and confidence come with time and consistency. The first video is for bamboo Bamboo The second video is for I-Invest i-invest Please if anyone has any more questions please comment and I'll try to reply,and if you can DM I'll appreciate if you guys can use my referral codes
0:15

INTRODUCTION TO THE STOCK MARKET The stock market is a place where individuals and institutions buy and sell ownership in companies (called shares or stocks). When you buy a share, you’re essentially buying a small piece of that company and participating in its growth, profits, and risks. People invest in the stock market to grow wealth over time, earn dividends, protect against inflation, and build long-term financial security. Unlike short-term trading, investing focuses on patience, discipline, and owning quality businesses. --- INTRODUCTION TO THE NIGERIAN STOCK MARKET (NGX) The Nigerian Exchange Group (NGX) is Nigeria’s official stock exchange, where publicly listed Nigerian companies trade their shares. It hosts banks, telecoms, industrial firms, consumer goods companies, oil & gas firms, and more. Through the NGX, everyday Nigerians can own parts of companies like banks, manufacturing firms, telecom operators, and other major businesses driving the economy. Returns come from: Capital appreciation (share price increases) Dividends (cash payouts from profits) The NGX is regulated, structured, and accessible to both local and foreign investors through licensed platforms. --- HOW TO GET STARTED INVESTING IN NGX (TWO SIMPLE WAYS) Today, you don’t need to walk into a stockbroking office. You can get started fully online using digital investment platforms. Below are two popular and easy options that I personally use; --- 1) GETTING STARTED WITH BAMBOO Bamboo Bamboo is a digital investment app that allows Nigerians to invest in Nigerian stocks (NGX) and foreign stocks. Steps to get started: 1. Download the Bamboo app from the App Store or Google Play. 2. Create an account with your email and phone number. 3. Complete KYC verification Input your BVN Provide personal details 4. Fund your wallet via bank transfer. 5. Search for Nigerian stocks listed on NGX and place your first buy order. 👉 Referral code: ngxinvestor Bamboo is beginner-friendly and suitable for people who want a simple interface and access to both local and global markets. When done with registration to buy stocks on Bamboo,select the " Invest " icon on the bottom part of the screen,you will see that you can invest in USD or Naira assets,click on Naira,then select NG stocks,search for the stock of your choice and buy --- 2) GETTING STARTED WITH I-INVEST i-invest I-Invest is an official platform that allows Nigerians to invest in Nigerian stocks, Commercial Papers,Mutual Funds,USD Bonds etc... Steps to get started: 1. Visit the I-Invest website or download the app on App Store or Google Play. 2. Create an account 3. Complete required KYC documentation: BVN Valid ID Bank details Proof of Address etc... 4. Fund your account. 5. Start buying NGX-listed stocks directly through the app. 👉 Referral code: 22406 I-Invest is ideal for investors who want more Investment options because you can also invest in fixed deposit notes, commercial papers,USD Bonds ,life insurance etc.. After registration to buy shares ,click on " Invest " then select " Equities " ,then search the company of your choice then select "buy equities" --- FINAL NOTES FOR BEGINNERS Start small and grow with experience. Focus on learning before chasing quick profits. Invest in businesses you understand. Think long-term, not overnight success. The most important step is starting — clarity and confidence come with time and consistency. The first video is for bamboo Bamboo The second video is for I-Invest i-invest Please if anyone has any more questions please comment and I'll try to reply,and if you can DM I'll appreciate if you guys can use my referral codes

Emmanuel Essien

20,432 views • 7 months ago

Bruce Greenwald invited Li Lu to speak to his class on value investing. The result is a 90 minute masterclass on how to be a value investor. If you haven't watched the video, do it now. If you have, it's worth re-watching. Here is a list of my favorite quotes from Li Lu 👇 PERSONALITY OF A VALUE INVESTOR • "Understand who you are as an investor, because you will be tested. You will have to ask yourself if you truly are a value investor." • "Value investing goes against our evolution of following the crowds to survive." • "You will spend most of your time as an investigative journalist. To have insatiable curiosity." • "You almost have to be curious about everything. Because you never know where you'll get that one major insight." INVESTOR CRITERIA • Is it cheap? • Is it a good business? • Why is this opportunity available to me? "Once you answer those questions, you really have to go for it." INVESTMENT CASE STUDY 1: TIMBERLAND • "The first thing I check in a company is it's valuation." • "If you're an investor you don't care where it traded before." • "What matters isn't the price-to-book ratio itself, but what's in the book value." • "You want to compare the capital invested in the business to how much pre-tax cash flow the business generates using that capital." • "So Timberland generated $100M on $200M in capital invested. So why does the opportunity exist?" - Nike, Reebok, all the shoe brands fell off a cliff during the Asian Financial Crisis. - Founder owns 40% of the stock - Company was profitable and didn't need financial markets (no sell-side) - Tons of shareholder lawsuits • "What would be your conclusion if you were a normal mutual fund hearing this information? That management is milking the company for their own gain." What does Li Lu do next? • "I download every file of the shareholder court cases. That's the investigative journalist part." • "The result was that the founder withdrew guidance and shareholders didn't like it. That was it." How do you determine if management are decent people? • "You've got to be an investigative journalist and find the trail of evidence. Go to their community. Introduce yourself to their friends/family/neighbors." Total Time Commitment: "A couple of weeks of diligent/obsessive work" • "Investing is intensive work for short bursts of time." HOW MUCH TO BUY? • "If you go join a fund, they'll tell you not to risk anything more than 25-50bps." • "Think about how much effort you put in to this work. You have no downside and its trading at 5x profits." • "So, I put a shitload of money into Timberland. Over the next 10 years it went up 7x. It was never more than 15x earnings." • "If you're not a good analyst, you'll NEVER be a good investor." • "When it goes up, you don't have to do a damn thing. You just sit on it and ride with it." INVESTMENT CASE STUDY 2: KOREAN COMPANY • "Don't think about per-share numbers. Think of yourself as an owner." • "$236M in book value, $60M market cap, $25M net earnings." How do you know it's cheap? • "You must confirm that the earnings are there, and that the book value is real, liquid, and tangible." • "They're trading at the cash value in the bank with no debt. They have hotels and department stores that they own outright. They're making $30M+ in pre-tax earnings. And insiders own 50%." The result: Went up 5-6x VALUE INVESTING IS NOT NATURAL • "There's a lot of money in value investing. But it's still unnatural to most people." • "One thing you have to do, is you have to do the work. You have to do the reps. You can make a ton of money if you really do this stuff." • "I benefited by listening AND THEN DOING my own work. Making my own investments and mistakes." WHAT MAKES A GREAT ANALYST • "You must provide accurate and complete information. If you can't succeed on that, you can't succeed in this business." • "If you're not confident about your prediction and what you know, you can't put any money when the stock's in free fall." WHAT PROVIDES THE BIGGEST RETURNS • "Your biggest returns will come from no more than ten tremendous insights. That's it." • "The only way to build those insights is intense curiosity, intense study." INVESTING MISTAKES • "The biggest mistakes come when you buy before you've done all the work." • "My biggest mistakes aren't buying and losing money. It's not buying and missing out on 50-60x returns." HOW MANY COMPANIES SHOULD YOU BUY • "I don't have any set rules on how many stocks or companies I buy. Opportunities are sporadic and it depends on the environment." • "I usually have 3-4 big ideas. If the market is exciting, I have more opportunities. Or if the market is boring, I have fewer." HOW LI LU ALLOCATES TIME • "Most of the time I spend reading and studying about everything. Learning new companies and industries." • "If I find an idea that captivates me. I stop everything and obsess over that idea." • "Besides that, I spend a lot of time with my kid and my wife." TL;DR: • Be an investigative journalist. • Work obsessively in short bursts and spend the rest. of your time learning. • When you've done the work and have conviction, buy a shitload to make it worth it. • Before you invest $1, make sure you can answer the three big questions: Is it cheap, is the management team good, and why does the opportunity exist. • Never stop learning. • Become a curiosity machine.
1:40:32

Bruce Greenwald invited Li Lu to speak to his class on value investing. The result is a 90 minute masterclass on how to be a value investor. If you haven't watched the video, do it now. If you have, it's worth re-watching. Here is a list of my favorite quotes from Li Lu 👇 PERSONALITY OF A VALUE INVESTOR • "Understand who you are as an investor, because you will be tested. You will have to ask yourself if you truly are a value investor." • "Value investing goes against our evolution of following the crowds to survive." • "You will spend most of your time as an investigative journalist. To have insatiable curiosity." • "You almost have to be curious about everything. Because you never know where you'll get that one major insight." INVESTOR CRITERIA • Is it cheap? • Is it a good business? • Why is this opportunity available to me? "Once you answer those questions, you really have to go for it." INVESTMENT CASE STUDY 1: TIMBERLAND • "The first thing I check in a company is it's valuation." • "If you're an investor you don't care where it traded before." • "What matters isn't the price-to-book ratio itself, but what's in the book value." • "You want to compare the capital invested in the business to how much pre-tax cash flow the business generates using that capital." • "So Timberland generated $100M on $200M in capital invested. So why does the opportunity exist?" - Nike, Reebok, all the shoe brands fell off a cliff during the Asian Financial Crisis. - Founder owns 40% of the stock - Company was profitable and didn't need financial markets (no sell-side) - Tons of shareholder lawsuits • "What would be your conclusion if you were a normal mutual fund hearing this information? That management is milking the company for their own gain." What does Li Lu do next? • "I download every file of the shareholder court cases. That's the investigative journalist part." • "The result was that the founder withdrew guidance and shareholders didn't like it. That was it." How do you determine if management are decent people? • "You've got to be an investigative journalist and find the trail of evidence. Go to their community. Introduce yourself to their friends/family/neighbors." Total Time Commitment: "A couple of weeks of diligent/obsessive work" • "Investing is intensive work for short bursts of time." HOW MUCH TO BUY? • "If you go join a fund, they'll tell you not to risk anything more than 25-50bps." • "Think about how much effort you put in to this work. You have no downside and its trading at 5x profits." • "So, I put a shitload of money into Timberland. Over the next 10 years it went up 7x. It was never more than 15x earnings." • "If you're not a good analyst, you'll NEVER be a good investor." • "When it goes up, you don't have to do a damn thing. You just sit on it and ride with it." INVESTMENT CASE STUDY 2: KOREAN COMPANY • "Don't think about per-share numbers. Think of yourself as an owner." • "$236M in book value, $60M market cap, $25M net earnings." How do you know it's cheap? • "You must confirm that the earnings are there, and that the book value is real, liquid, and tangible." • "They're trading at the cash value in the bank with no debt. They have hotels and department stores that they own outright. They're making $30M+ in pre-tax earnings. And insiders own 50%." The result: Went up 5-6x VALUE INVESTING IS NOT NATURAL • "There's a lot of money in value investing. But it's still unnatural to most people." • "One thing you have to do, is you have to do the work. You have to do the reps. You can make a ton of money if you really do this stuff." • "I benefited by listening AND THEN DOING my own work. Making my own investments and mistakes." WHAT MAKES A GREAT ANALYST • "You must provide accurate and complete information. If you can't succeed on that, you can't succeed in this business." • "If you're not confident about your prediction and what you know, you can't put any money when the stock's in free fall." WHAT PROVIDES THE BIGGEST RETURNS • "Your biggest returns will come from no more than ten tremendous insights. That's it." • "The only way to build those insights is intense curiosity, intense study." INVESTING MISTAKES • "The biggest mistakes come when you buy before you've done all the work." • "My biggest mistakes aren't buying and losing money. It's not buying and missing out on 50-60x returns." HOW MANY COMPANIES SHOULD YOU BUY • "I don't have any set rules on how many stocks or companies I buy. Opportunities are sporadic and it depends on the environment." • "I usually have 3-4 big ideas. If the market is exciting, I have more opportunities. Or if the market is boring, I have fewer." HOW LI LU ALLOCATES TIME • "Most of the time I spend reading and studying about everything. Learning new companies and industries." • "If I find an idea that captivates me. I stop everything and obsess over that idea." • "Besides that, I spend a lot of time with my kid and my wife." TL;DR: • Be an investigative journalist. • Work obsessively in short bursts and spend the rest. of your time learning. • When you've done the work and have conviction, buy a shitload to make it worth it. • Before you invest $1, make sure you can answer the three big questions: Is it cheap, is the management team good, and why does the opportunity exist. • Never stop learning. • Become a curiosity machine.

Brandon Beylo

2,750,588 views • 3 years ago

Bill Ackman: "I turned an $8B railroad company into $25B in 16 months" "My father, he's here, that's Dad over there in the corner, he told me it's a really dumb idea to start an investment fund right out of business school. He recommended I go work for Michael Steinhardt or George Soros or one of the other famous investors at the time." But Ackman didn't listen: "I figured I knew enough. This is the perils of youth. But the answer is, I was an entrepreneur. I felt I wanted to approach investing my own way, as opposed to learning from someone else. And investing is one of the few things you can really learn on your own. You can learn by reading books, reading annual reports. You can have a portfolio and invest $100 and learn the business, unlike many other businesses which require a lot more." He shares how he started: "I went to business school to learn how to be a good investor. I learned the first rule of investing: you do your due diligence before you wire in your money. When I got to Harvard Business School, I opened the course catalog for the first time, and there wasn't a class on investing. So I decided to develop my own self-study program." Ackman opened a brokerage account with his savings: "I had some money I'd made in the real estate brokerage business. This was my tuition in the investment business about a year of tuition. If I lost it, it was as if I had gone to business school for two years but paid for three. The first stock I bought went up, and I said, 'Okay, I found what I want to do.'" He explains how investing has changed: "The vast majority of capital invested in the markets today is passive index funds, ETFs, long-only institutions. You do your research, or in some cases you don't do the research; you just blindly follow an index. But if you think about investing 100 years ago, you had Andrew Carnegie owning 20% of U.S. Steel. You had J.P. Morgan as a large owner of various companies. In the old days, an owner would act like an owner. If they were unhappy with the performance of the business, they would replace the CEO. If they were unhappy with the board's judgment, they would make changes." Ackman describes what his firm does: "We look for situations where a business has lost its way. An otherwise great company in a business with significant barriers to entry, what Warren Buffett would describe as having a moat around it. A business that is simple, predictable, generates cash, and we can be confident will be here 50 years from now." He shares the Canadian Pacific story: "We owned a stake in Canadian Pacific, a railroad in Canada. It's a business where they're not going to build a new one across the street. You can be pretty comfortable that goods will be shipped on rail for a very long time. This was the worst-run railroad in North America. Lowest profit margins. Lowest valuation relative to earnings. Very unhappy shareholder base. But there was nothing they could do about it because the biggest investors tend to be very passive." Ackman saw the opportunity: "If you could replace the worst CEO in the railroad industry with the best CEO in the railroad industry, a lot of money could be made. We bought 14% of the stock. We recruited a guy named Hunter Harrison, widely considered the best railroad executive of all time. He had retired at 65. He was 66 and a half. He had signed a two-year non-compete with his employer, and I think the biggest mistake they made was a two-year non-compete." They hired him as a consultant first: "He had plenty of fire in his belly. We said, 'Would you be interested in the day job?' He said, 'Let me check with my wife.' She said, 'It's time to get you out of the house again.'" But the board didn't want him: "Canadian Pacific had one of the most esteemed boards in Canada, former head of the Royal Bank of Canada, former CEO of Suncor Energy, former head of the steel business. They didn't like the idea that this was coming from outside the company. So they said no." Ackman went to the shareholders: "We ran an election, a proxy contest. We put up seven directors for seven seats on a 13-seat board. The shareholders voted with us 90% of the time. The other guys got between 3 and 11% of the vote. We put our directors on, did a review of the best CEOs in the world, turns out the guy we identified was the best guy, and we put him in as CEO." The result: "That was 16 months ago. It's now almost the most profitable railroad in North America. The stock went from $46 to $151 a share. From a little under $8 billion market cap to a $25 billion market cap. That's the perfect example. Now it doesn't always work that way."
5:43

Bill Ackman: "I turned an $8B railroad company into $25B in 16 months" "My father, he's here, that's Dad over there in the corner, he told me it's a really dumb idea to start an investment fund right out of business school. He recommended I go work for Michael Steinhardt or George Soros or one of the other famous investors at the time." But Ackman didn't listen: "I figured I knew enough. This is the perils of youth. But the answer is, I was an entrepreneur. I felt I wanted to approach investing my own way, as opposed to learning from someone else. And investing is one of the few things you can really learn on your own. You can learn by reading books, reading annual reports. You can have a portfolio and invest $100 and learn the business, unlike many other businesses which require a lot more." He shares how he started: "I went to business school to learn how to be a good investor. I learned the first rule of investing: you do your due diligence before you wire in your money. When I got to Harvard Business School, I opened the course catalog for the first time, and there wasn't a class on investing. So I decided to develop my own self-study program." Ackman opened a brokerage account with his savings: "I had some money I'd made in the real estate brokerage business. This was my tuition in the investment business about a year of tuition. If I lost it, it was as if I had gone to business school for two years but paid for three. The first stock I bought went up, and I said, 'Okay, I found what I want to do.'" He explains how investing has changed: "The vast majority of capital invested in the markets today is passive index funds, ETFs, long-only institutions. You do your research, or in some cases you don't do the research; you just blindly follow an index. But if you think about investing 100 years ago, you had Andrew Carnegie owning 20% of U.S. Steel. You had J.P. Morgan as a large owner of various companies. In the old days, an owner would act like an owner. If they were unhappy with the performance of the business, they would replace the CEO. If they were unhappy with the board's judgment, they would make changes." Ackman describes what his firm does: "We look for situations where a business has lost its way. An otherwise great company in a business with significant barriers to entry, what Warren Buffett would describe as having a moat around it. A business that is simple, predictable, generates cash, and we can be confident will be here 50 years from now." He shares the Canadian Pacific story: "We owned a stake in Canadian Pacific, a railroad in Canada. It's a business where they're not going to build a new one across the street. You can be pretty comfortable that goods will be shipped on rail for a very long time. This was the worst-run railroad in North America. Lowest profit margins. Lowest valuation relative to earnings. Very unhappy shareholder base. But there was nothing they could do about it because the biggest investors tend to be very passive." Ackman saw the opportunity: "If you could replace the worst CEO in the railroad industry with the best CEO in the railroad industry, a lot of money could be made. We bought 14% of the stock. We recruited a guy named Hunter Harrison, widely considered the best railroad executive of all time. He had retired at 65. He was 66 and a half. He had signed a two-year non-compete with his employer, and I think the biggest mistake they made was a two-year non-compete." They hired him as a consultant first: "He had plenty of fire in his belly. We said, 'Would you be interested in the day job?' He said, 'Let me check with my wife.' She said, 'It's time to get you out of the house again.'" But the board didn't want him: "Canadian Pacific had one of the most esteemed boards in Canada, former head of the Royal Bank of Canada, former CEO of Suncor Energy, former head of the steel business. They didn't like the idea that this was coming from outside the company. So they said no." Ackman went to the shareholders: "We ran an election, a proxy contest. We put up seven directors for seven seats on a 13-seat board. The shareholders voted with us 90% of the time. The other guys got between 3 and 11% of the vote. We put our directors on, did a review of the best CEOs in the world, turns out the guy we identified was the best guy, and we put him in as CEO." The result: "That was 16 months ago. It's now almost the most profitable railroad in North America. The stock went from $46 to $151 a share. From a little under $8 billion market cap to a $25 billion market cap. That's the perfect example. Now it doesn't always work that way."

Jaynit

286,386 views • 4 months ago

A Watch and Investment Story I have been a watch enthusiast since my dad got me interested in watches decades ago. About three years ago, I was in London and walked by a watch boutique called Bremont. I stepped into the store, fell in love with the watches, thought they were fairly priced if not somewhat inexpensive for the quality, and bought a number of them as gifts for friends and one for myself. As I was completing the purchases, I asked the store manager: ‘Who owns the company?’ He said, “The English brothers” – Nick and Giles English – and then he proceeded to tell me Bremont’s origin story that begins with a tragic plane crash of a 1942 Harvard trainer aircraft (an American plane purchased by the British beginning in 1938) which killed their father and almost Nick. In their ‘What does not kill me makes me stronger’ new world, Nick and Giles were inspired to pursue their dream of creating and building a British watch company, and Bremont thereafter was born. The manager gave me their contact information and I sent an email congratulating the brothers on the company, the brand, and the watches. I also offered to invest and help the business grow. Sometime later, I did a Zoom with Nick. He explained that my timing was good, as a long-time investor in the company was looking to sell some of their shares. Within a couple of months, an affiliate of mine invested coinciding with the purchase by a legacy Bremont shareholder of primary shares to provide the company with additional growth capital. I thereafter bought more shares of stock from other selling shareholders and I invested a substantial amount of additional growth capital in the company just this past week. Affiliates of mine and The Bremont Long Term Trust, a trust I recently established, now own 63% of the company. Bremont is a luxury British watch company that produces adventure and exploration watches. About one-fourth of Bremont’s sales are to the military, where the company has made custom-designed watches for more than 500 British, U.S., and other American ally squadrons around the world. While today there are very few British watch companies, the British actually created the watch industry – Rolex, notably, was a British company before it moved to Switzerland – with many of the most important technical innovations and complications of the industry having been invented in England in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. For the watch industry, the Swiss can be thought of like the Japanese of the U.S. auto industry, where in the early days, the Swiss made cheap imitations of British watches, but eventually by the 20th century, came to dominate the industry. For compliance reasons, I have been limited in my personal investments to private situations, principally startups, real estate, and private equity, directly and through funds. Because of my personal time limitations, I spend very little time on these investments, but through a combination of good luck, investment experience, and a good eye for talent, my collective private investment outcomes have been excellent, with a few huge successes outweighing some disappointments. I have always viewed my non-Pershing Square investments as an opportunity for learning and insights that I can apply to my day job. For example, I have found that closely following the venture investment world has provided important insights into disruptive technologies and companies that can soon become serious threats to even the largest and best capitalized public companies. Experiences at small companies also very often apply to big ones, so in my hobby of making personal investments, my returns have been both financial and educational, from my successes and from my failures. Other than tennis, I don’t have any real hobbies, but perhaps my personal investing qualifies as my second passion. To date, I have been a passive investor in Bremont, but perhaps the activist in me caused me to step forward, to recently seize the opportunity to materially increase my investment in the company, and become the non-executive chairman of a newly refreshed board. I don’t expect my chairman role at Bremont to take much of my time as it is a private company of limited scale, but I do expect my experience here will provide some helpful learnings and insights. I also thought it would be fun, interesting, and rewarding to take the X community along for the ride – at least those that are interested in watches, operations, and investing. I intend to provide periodic updates of the company’s progress on X, about our successes, our struggles, and our failures – so that we can learn and have some fun together. Think of my periodic updates as “Drive to Survive,” but for watches on X. “Time to Succeed”? You can probably come up with a better name for the series, and perhaps then I should reach out to Netflix to see if they are interested (while holding back my tears as I have watched the stock massively appreciate since our exit!). Bremont can greatly benefit by your feedback so I strongly encourage you to share your insights, critiques, and other ideas about the company and its watches on X so we can learn and improve. We will periodically award the best ideas with Bremont watches so you can have an opportunity to earn an appropriate in-kind return on your time invested in helping us succeed. In the modern era, building an independent watch company into a major company, let alone one in the U.K., has rarely if ever occurred. The watch world is littered with many such failed attempts so it is far from guaranteed that we will succeed in building a profitable and sustainable company, let alone a major independent player. My Investment History to Date with Bremont Prior to my investment in the company, Nick and Giles had taken Bremont to a reasonable scale for an independently owned watch company at about £21 million in revenues with a modest operating loss, which is an incredible accomplishment for two young men with no watch industry experience. Nick and Giles accomplishment is particularly significant in an extremely competitive industry characterized by well capitalized incumbents that control many of the top brands, e.g., Richemont, Swatch, LVMH, as well dominant, independently owned companies like Rolex, Patek Philippe, Audemars and Piguet, and a few others. Despite their progress, both Nick and Giles and the other shareholders agreed that bringing in an executive with watch industry experience would help to take the company to the next level. Shortly after I invested, we hired a search firm to identify and ultimately recruit our new CEO, Davide Cerrato, who joined in May of 2023. Davide’s entire career has been spent in the industry at Panerai, Tudor – where he famously created the Black Bay, Montblanc, and with a brief stent at HYT. Davide in turn hired other industry notables to round out the executive suite, and then the team went to work with the ambitious goal of transforming Bremont into a global industry leader. Bremont has some important competitive advantages. First and most importantly, the watches are handsome, extremely well designed, and overengineered. Davide’s team has materially upgraded materials (for example, the company now uses 904L steel for all of its steel watches – the same as Rolex – unprecedented for watches at Bremont’s price point), parts, and movements from what was already a good standard to a level comparable to watches at multiples of the price. The watches are developed, designed, manufactured, and serviced in Henley-on-Thames using principally Swiss movements. While making its own movement is an aspirational goal for Bremont, the Swiss still make the highest quality movements so that is what Bremont uses. Bremont has a unique brand story and heritage, particularly for a 23-year-old company, with two decades of credibility in war zones and air combat missions with the best war fighters and military pilots in the world. Bremont also makes a limited number of watches, around 10,000 per year, compared with more than 1.2 million for Rolex and 70,000 for Patek Philippe, and scarcity drives value in luxury goods. The combination of battlefield credibility, rarity, quality and a fair price make Bremont an extremely attractive alternative to the typical Rolex or Patek, which everyone seems to be wearing in my industry, a ubiquity in my view that loses its luster over time. Over the past 23 months, Davide and team have redesigned and focused Bremont’s range around three core offerings in Land, Sea, and Air – the Terra Nova, the Supermarine, and the Altitude – while upgrading materials, movements, and quality, updating the logo to reflect the new Land and Sea offerings (Bremont was previously perceived to only be an aviation brand), and dramatically improving manufacturing and service. The company has extended its warranty from three to five years on its new watches reflecting these improvements. Bremont benefits from having overinvested in its spectacular 35,000 square foot combined headquarters, manufacturing facility, and showroom in Henley-on-Thames, aka “The Wing” (email tours@bremont.com to arrange a superb tour), with the capacity for substantial growth without the requirement for incremental capital investment. Lastly, Bremont now has a well-capitalized long-term major owner who would like to see Bremont become a big success and achieve its vision of returning watchmaking to the UK, and who is not looking for dividends or a liquidity event in this lifetime. I have learned over time that permanent capital and a truly long-term orientation are enormous competitive advantages for any business, and they should be very helpful here. With respect to the product, later this morning in Geneva at Watches and Wonders, the industry’s most important trade show, the company is launching its new Altitude aviation line, which builds from the company’s highly successful Martin Baker offerings. The company will also be introducing some complicated new watches including two unique, jumping hour models, a 12-piece new tourbillion model (the company's first 30-piece tourbillion watch sold out shortly after its launch last year), and the company’s first perpetual calendar (limited to 50 pieces). I will be back with further updates as we continue to make progress. In the meantime, please check out and visit the Wing (Tours@bremont.com ) and our boutiques in Mayfair and throughout the U.K., on Madison Avenue and 53rd Street, in Hong Kong, and in Melbourne. Pictures don’t do Bremonts justice so you should go in person and tell the store manager that I sent you. Also, please take a look at our new launch video, and don't forget to let me know what you think.
0:45

A Watch and Investment Story I have been a watch enthusiast since my dad got me interested in watches decades ago. About three years ago, I was in London and walked by a watch boutique called Bremont. I stepped into the store, fell in love with the watches, thought they were fairly priced if not somewhat inexpensive for the quality, and bought a number of them as gifts for friends and one for myself. As I was completing the purchases, I asked the store manager: ‘Who owns the company?’ He said, “The English brothers” – Nick and Giles English – and then he proceeded to tell me Bremont’s origin story that begins with a tragic plane crash of a 1942 Harvard trainer aircraft (an American plane purchased by the British beginning in 1938) which killed their father and almost Nick. In their ‘What does not kill me makes me stronger’ new world, Nick and Giles were inspired to pursue their dream of creating and building a British watch company, and Bremont thereafter was born. The manager gave me their contact information and I sent an email congratulating the brothers on the company, the brand, and the watches. I also offered to invest and help the business grow. Sometime later, I did a Zoom with Nick. He explained that my timing was good, as a long-time investor in the company was looking to sell some of their shares. Within a couple of months, an affiliate of mine invested coinciding with the purchase by a legacy Bremont shareholder of primary shares to provide the company with additional growth capital. I thereafter bought more shares of stock from other selling shareholders and I invested a substantial amount of additional growth capital in the company just this past week. Affiliates of mine and The Bremont Long Term Trust, a trust I recently established, now own 63% of the company. Bremont is a luxury British watch company that produces adventure and exploration watches. About one-fourth of Bremont’s sales are to the military, where the company has made custom-designed watches for more than 500 British, U.S., and other American ally squadrons around the world. While today there are very few British watch companies, the British actually created the watch industry – Rolex, notably, was a British company before it moved to Switzerland – with many of the most important technical innovations and complications of the industry having been invented in England in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. For the watch industry, the Swiss can be thought of like the Japanese of the U.S. auto industry, where in the early days, the Swiss made cheap imitations of British watches, but eventually by the 20th century, came to dominate the industry. For compliance reasons, I have been limited in my personal investments to private situations, principally startups, real estate, and private equity, directly and through funds. Because of my personal time limitations, I spend very little time on these investments, but through a combination of good luck, investment experience, and a good eye for talent, my collective private investment outcomes have been excellent, with a few huge successes outweighing some disappointments. I have always viewed my non-Pershing Square investments as an opportunity for learning and insights that I can apply to my day job. For example, I have found that closely following the venture investment world has provided important insights into disruptive technologies and companies that can soon become serious threats to even the largest and best capitalized public companies. Experiences at small companies also very often apply to big ones, so in my hobby of making personal investments, my returns have been both financial and educational, from my successes and from my failures. Other than tennis, I don’t have any real hobbies, but perhaps my personal investing qualifies as my second passion. To date, I have been a passive investor in Bremont, but perhaps the activist in me caused me to step forward, to recently seize the opportunity to materially increase my investment in the company, and become the non-executive chairman of a newly refreshed board. I don’t expect my chairman role at Bremont to take much of my time as it is a private company of limited scale, but I do expect my experience here will provide some helpful learnings and insights. I also thought it would be fun, interesting, and rewarding to take the X community along for the ride – at least those that are interested in watches, operations, and investing. I intend to provide periodic updates of the company’s progress on X, about our successes, our struggles, and our failures – so that we can learn and have some fun together. Think of my periodic updates as “Drive to Survive,” but for watches on X. “Time to Succeed”? You can probably come up with a better name for the series, and perhaps then I should reach out to Netflix to see if they are interested (while holding back my tears as I have watched the stock massively appreciate since our exit!). Bremont can greatly benefit by your feedback so I strongly encourage you to share your insights, critiques, and other ideas about the company and its watches on X so we can learn and improve. We will periodically award the best ideas with Bremont watches so you can have an opportunity to earn an appropriate in-kind return on your time invested in helping us succeed. In the modern era, building an independent watch company into a major company, let alone one in the U.K., has rarely if ever occurred. The watch world is littered with many such failed attempts so it is far from guaranteed that we will succeed in building a profitable and sustainable company, let alone a major independent player. My Investment History to Date with Bremont Prior to my investment in the company, Nick and Giles had taken Bremont to a reasonable scale for an independently owned watch company at about £21 million in revenues with a modest operating loss, which is an incredible accomplishment for two young men with no watch industry experience. Nick and Giles accomplishment is particularly significant in an extremely competitive industry characterized by well capitalized incumbents that control many of the top brands, e.g., Richemont, Swatch, LVMH, as well dominant, independently owned companies like Rolex, Patek Philippe, Audemars and Piguet, and a few others. Despite their progress, both Nick and Giles and the other shareholders agreed that bringing in an executive with watch industry experience would help to take the company to the next level. Shortly after I invested, we hired a search firm to identify and ultimately recruit our new CEO, Davide Cerrato, who joined in May of 2023. Davide’s entire career has been spent in the industry at Panerai, Tudor – where he famously created the Black Bay, Montblanc, and with a brief stent at HYT. Davide in turn hired other industry notables to round out the executive suite, and then the team went to work with the ambitious goal of transforming Bremont into a global industry leader. Bremont has some important competitive advantages. First and most importantly, the watches are handsome, extremely well designed, and overengineered. Davide’s team has materially upgraded materials (for example, the company now uses 904L steel for all of its steel watches – the same as Rolex – unprecedented for watches at Bremont’s price point), parts, and movements from what was already a good standard to a level comparable to watches at multiples of the price. The watches are developed, designed, manufactured, and serviced in Henley-on-Thames using principally Swiss movements. While making its own movement is an aspirational goal for Bremont, the Swiss still make the highest quality movements so that is what Bremont uses. Bremont has a unique brand story and heritage, particularly for a 23-year-old company, with two decades of credibility in war zones and air combat missions with the best war fighters and military pilots in the world. Bremont also makes a limited number of watches, around 10,000 per year, compared with more than 1.2 million for Rolex and 70,000 for Patek Philippe, and scarcity drives value in luxury goods. The combination of battlefield credibility, rarity, quality and a fair price make Bremont an extremely attractive alternative to the typical Rolex or Patek, which everyone seems to be wearing in my industry, a ubiquity in my view that loses its luster over time. Over the past 23 months, Davide and team have redesigned and focused Bremont’s range around three core offerings in Land, Sea, and Air – the Terra Nova, the Supermarine, and the Altitude – while upgrading materials, movements, and quality, updating the logo to reflect the new Land and Sea offerings (Bremont was previously perceived to only be an aviation brand), and dramatically improving manufacturing and service. The company has extended its warranty from three to five years on its new watches reflecting these improvements. Bremont benefits from having overinvested in its spectacular 35,000 square foot combined headquarters, manufacturing facility, and showroom in Henley-on-Thames, aka “The Wing” (email [email protected] to arrange a superb tour), with the capacity for substantial growth without the requirement for incremental capital investment. Lastly, Bremont now has a well-capitalized long-term major owner who would like to see Bremont become a big success and achieve its vision of returning watchmaking to the UK, and who is not looking for dividends or a liquidity event in this lifetime. I have learned over time that permanent capital and a truly long-term orientation are enormous competitive advantages for any business, and they should be very helpful here. With respect to the product, later this morning in Geneva at Watches and Wonders, the industry’s most important trade show, the company is launching its new Altitude aviation line, which builds from the company’s highly successful Martin Baker offerings. The company will also be introducing some complicated new watches including two unique, jumping hour models, a 12-piece new tourbillion model (the company's first 30-piece tourbillion watch sold out shortly after its launch last year), and the company’s first perpetual calendar (limited to 50 pieces). I will be back with further updates as we continue to make progress. In the meantime, please check out and visit the Wing ([email protected] ) and our boutiques in Mayfair and throughout the U.K., on Madison Avenue and 53rd Street, in Hong Kong, and in Melbourne. Pictures don’t do Bremonts justice so you should go in person and tell the store manager that I sent you. Also, please take a look at our new launch video, and don't forget to let me know what you think.

Bill Ackman

1,625,902 views • 1 year ago

🧵 I just interviewed James Lavish , Strive Director & Managing Partner at the Bitcoin Opportunity Fund. He explained why the U.S. is in a spending trap with no mathematical way out. 📺Full Interview: Find out what it all means for Bitcoin treasury companies. *TIMESTAMPS:* 00:00 Cold Open 01:10 Introduction to James Lavish: Fund Manager, Director & Bitcoiner 08:30 The Role of Management in Bitcoin Treasury Companies like Strive 14:52 Market Dynamics and Bitcoin's Position As A Risk Asset 20:53 Investment Strategies for Bitcoin Treasury Companies 29:48 Macro Economic Insights & Predictions 34:26 The Impact of Treasury Issuance on Bank Reserves 38:13 The Fed's Response to Financial Stress 41:35 Why Yellen Issued On The Short End, Inflation, And DOGE's Failure 44:57 The Challenges of Managing National Debt And The Spending Trap 50:21 Exploring Bitcoin as a Financial Solution Without A Productivity Miracle 56:18 Where To Follow James & His Fund 57:04 Stay Orange 57:18 Outro This is important 👇 The DOGE reality check: "We can't cut spending. Interest payments + defense + entitlements = the entire budget." Even if you zeroed out everything else, you're still running a deficit. James breaks down why fiscal responsibility is mathematically impossible: [44:57] On Bitcoin treasury company management: "Management quality separates winners from losers." James Lavish shares what he looks for when investing in treasury companies - and why Strive's approach caught his attention. What matters beyond just stacking sats: [08:30] The liquidity crisis nobody's watching: Bank reserves are being drained. The RRP is empty. Treasury issuance is creating stress in the system. James walks through the mechanics of why the Fed is approaching a breaking point: [34:26] Why Yellen issued on the short end: The strategy of funding deficits with T-bills instead of long bonds had a purpose - but it's created a new problem. James explains the consequences and why it contributed to DOGE's failure: [41:35] The inevitability of QE: "The Fed doesn't want to restart QE. But the math doesn't work any other way." James shares his timeline for when quantitative easing returns and what signs to watch: [38:13] Can Bitcoin solve this? Without a "productivity miracle," currency debasement is inevitable. James on whether Bitcoin is THE solution or just the best lifeboat: [50:21] Investment strategy for treasury companies: Practical advice on: • Evaluating management quality • What premium levels make sense • How to think about risk in this sector The framework from someone actually deploying capital: [l20:53] The macro picture: James shares predictions on: • Where markets are heading • Why inflation persists • How "the debasement trade" became Wall Street's answer • What this means for Bitcoin adoption Full macro breakdown: [29:48] Bottom line from James Lavish: The spending trap is real. QE is coming. The debasement trade is Wall Street's acknowledgment that the dollar's purchasing power will decline. Bitcoin isn't just an investment, it's a response to mathematical inevitability. This is one of the clearest explanations of why macro matters for Bitcoin that I've heard. Follow James Lavish for macro + Bitcoin insights Follow Tyler Rowe for treasury company analysis STAY ORANGE 🟠
57:33

🧵 I just interviewed James Lavish , Strive Director & Managing Partner at the Bitcoin Opportunity Fund. He explained why the U.S. is in a spending trap with no mathematical way out. 📺Full Interview: Find out what it all means for Bitcoin treasury companies. *TIMESTAMPS:* 00:00 Cold Open 01:10 Introduction to James Lavish: Fund Manager, Director & Bitcoiner 08:30 The Role of Management in Bitcoin Treasury Companies like Strive 14:52 Market Dynamics and Bitcoin's Position As A Risk Asset 20:53 Investment Strategies for Bitcoin Treasury Companies 29:48 Macro Economic Insights & Predictions 34:26 The Impact of Treasury Issuance on Bank Reserves 38:13 The Fed's Response to Financial Stress 41:35 Why Yellen Issued On The Short End, Inflation, And DOGE's Failure 44:57 The Challenges of Managing National Debt And The Spending Trap 50:21 Exploring Bitcoin as a Financial Solution Without A Productivity Miracle 56:18 Where To Follow James & His Fund 57:04 Stay Orange 57:18 Outro This is important 👇 The DOGE reality check: "We can't cut spending. Interest payments + defense + entitlements = the entire budget." Even if you zeroed out everything else, you're still running a deficit. James breaks down why fiscal responsibility is mathematically impossible: [44:57] On Bitcoin treasury company management: "Management quality separates winners from losers." James Lavish shares what he looks for when investing in treasury companies - and why Strive's approach caught his attention. What matters beyond just stacking sats: [08:30] The liquidity crisis nobody's watching: Bank reserves are being drained. The RRP is empty. Treasury issuance is creating stress in the system. James walks through the mechanics of why the Fed is approaching a breaking point: [34:26] Why Yellen issued on the short end: The strategy of funding deficits with T-bills instead of long bonds had a purpose - but it's created a new problem. James explains the consequences and why it contributed to DOGE's failure: [41:35] The inevitability of QE: "The Fed doesn't want to restart QE. But the math doesn't work any other way." James shares his timeline for when quantitative easing returns and what signs to watch: [38:13] Can Bitcoin solve this? Without a "productivity miracle," currency debasement is inevitable. James on whether Bitcoin is THE solution or just the best lifeboat: [50:21] Investment strategy for treasury companies: Practical advice on: • Evaluating management quality • What premium levels make sense • How to think about risk in this sector The framework from someone actually deploying capital: [l20:53] The macro picture: James shares predictions on: • Where markets are heading • Why inflation persists • How "the debasement trade" became Wall Street's answer • What this means for Bitcoin adoption Full macro breakdown: [29:48] Bottom line from James Lavish: The spending trap is real. QE is coming. The debasement trade is Wall Street's acknowledgment that the dollar's purchasing power will decline. Bitcoin isn't just an investment, it's a response to mathematical inevitability. This is one of the clearest explanations of why macro matters for Bitcoin that I've heard. Follow James Lavish for macro + Bitcoin insights Follow Tyler Rowe for treasury company analysis STAY ORANGE 🟠

Tyler Rowe

125,509 views • 9 months ago

I paid Alex & Leila Hormozi $5,000 for their 2-day scaling workshop. Why? To grow my business from $6 million to $12 million in 2025. These 12 lessons from the event will help me get there: 1. The fastest-moving entrepreneurs are obsessive resource allocators. Similar to investors, they seek the best risk-adjusted returns with the resources they have. The main resources of the business are: • Time (of the team) • Attention (of the team) • And capital (of the business) So resource allocation is: • Aligning attention on the most important thing • Properly allocating everyone’s time to achieve that thing the fastest • Strategically investing capital to accelerate the outcome or increase its likelihood of achievement 2. $3m to $10m in EBITDA is where the majority of the value in a business is created. $3m in EBITDA likely gets a 1x multiple, so $3m of enterprise value. The process of going to $10m (when done well), not only 3.3x’s the EBITDA, but can take the multiple from 1 to 4 -> which is a 13.2x return. The EV goes from $3m to $40m, and that is the stage we are in right now as a business. 3. LTV:CAC are two metrics you must have staring at you and constantly audited. LTV = lifetime value of the customer CAC = customer acquisition cost The scope of calculating those is beyond this write-up, but basically you want this metric to be ~8:1 or higher when aggressively scaling a service-based business. On top of that, these are the only two metrics that you can “improve” in your business → either making customers worth more or reducing the cost to acquire them. You should be able to tie every project on your list directly to the improvement of one of these metrics. 4. We need a single dashboard with the most important metrics in the business. The quality of the dashboard is: • How many people use it on a daily basis • And how clearly they can connect their performance to the performance of the main numbers on the dashboard. We have data thrown about across Airtable, Google Sheets, and various Slack channels. Now, it’s time to unite them such that we can make even better decisions as a team. 5. Leveling up in business is transitioning from selling to people to selling to employees. In the beginning, you are the one creating all of the value. Over time, you will replace yourself out of certain functions that are customer-facing (if you are approaching business correctly). However, your job then becomes selling to your employees to spark their highest performance and retain them. 6. Brand is the best way to improve LTV and reduce CAC at the same time. It makes it cheaper to acquire customers since you have fixed media expenses (just labor) but unlimited upside in the number of eyeballs you can reach. It increases LTV because the continued content you create makes customers likely to keep purchasing because they associate the good content with the purchase they made, whether it’s free content or not. 7. Every single thing in your business is trainable, you just lack the skill of training. Seeing their presentations, their handshakes, the way they repeat the question back to the audience, it was so clear that Alex & Leila did this first, then obsessively role-played and drilled each person on their performance until it was indistinguishable from theirs. 8. The people doing it at the highest level of an obsessive, intentional standard. It was so evident the way these employees conducted themselves that they: • Loved working there • Loved the culture of high performance • And had been trained with extreme repetition and attention to detail 9. Past $3-5m in revenue, anything “new” starts with “who” not “how.” I made the mistake last year of trying to “bootstrap” our cold ads initiative (while continuing to run the rest of the business & sales team). I spent roughly ~200 hours on this throughout the year, which took time away from both my content and the management of the sales team. But for whatever reason, I thought I “had” to be the one who got it off the ground, then handed it off to a new hire or media buyer. But I had the sequence flipped. I should have spent the first 50 hours finding a world-class director of paid marketing, someone with far more experience than me building out a cold traffic acquisition system. Heck, I could have even spent 200 hours on it and ended up with a far greater return than I ended up with. 10. Excellence is a remarkably high number of extremely small details done well. Throughout the workshop, I paid close attention to the event operations, taking notes on how to run a great in-person event in case we wanted to do so in the future. Several things stood out that were clearly “iterations” from prior events, all based around eliminating the small, annoying parts of attending any kind of seminar. • High-quality food • Greeters at the door • Clear bathroom signs • A barista for fresh coffee • WiFi signs posted everywhere • Constant 15-minute breaks every 90 minutes The list goes on and on. 11. Any change you make in a business you should expect a 20% “decrease” in performance to start. That makes the hurdle rate to doing “new” at least 20% for it to be worth it, and arguably 40%. This happens because the switching cost leads to an immediate drop just from having to retrain the team. Change a meeting cadence, change a sales script, change an onboarding flow, all of these are going to come with a switching cost the team must overcome. Therefore, the highest risk-adjusted return is always to just do more or better or whatever you’re already doing, rather than add something new. 12. The ultimate size of the business is the sum of the intelligence of its people. Alex laid out this golden nugget during one of his talks and I found it interesting for a few reasons. First, because of his definition of intelligence = speed of learning, that means the ultimate size of the company is how quickly everyone can learn things. And so said another way, the ultimate size of the company is correlated to the speed of its iterations. The second reason I found this interesting is because you can create a culture of iteration through constant, rapid feedback on every behavior. And when I say constant, I mean constant. You could tell they’ve built this culture by the way their presenters all presented the exact same way as Alex and Leila. Aaand that’s it! I go deeper into all these lessons in this video, check it out: Timestamps 00:37 The Fastest Moving Entrepreneurs Are Obsessive Resource Allocators 04:09 $3m To $10m EBITDA Is Where The Majority Of The Value In A Business Is Created 07:00 LTV:CAC Are Two Metrics You Must Have Staring At You 10:04 You Need A Single Dashboard With The Most Important Metrics In The Business 12:03 Leveling Up In Business Is Transitioning To Selling To People To Selling To Employees 14:10 Brand Is The Best Way To Improve LTV And Reduce CAC At The Same Time 16:02 Every Single Thing In Your Business Is Trainable, You Just Lack The Skill Of Training 18:54 The People Doing It At The Highest Level Have An Obsessive, Intentional Standard 20:04 Past $3-5m In Revenue, Anything "New" Starts With "Who" Not "How" 23:33 Excellence Is A Remarkably High Number Of Extremely Small Details Done Well 26:23 Any Change You Make In A Business You Should Expect A 20% "Decrease" In Performance To Start 28:07 The Ultimate Size Of The Business Is The Sum Of The Intelligence Of It's People
31:43

I paid Alex & Leila Hormozi $5,000 for their 2-day scaling workshop. Why? To grow my business from $6 million to $12 million in 2025. These 12 lessons from the event will help me get there: 1. The fastest-moving entrepreneurs are obsessive resource allocators. Similar to investors, they seek the best risk-adjusted returns with the resources they have. The main resources of the business are: • Time (of the team) • Attention (of the team) • And capital (of the business) So resource allocation is: • Aligning attention on the most important thing • Properly allocating everyone’s time to achieve that thing the fastest • Strategically investing capital to accelerate the outcome or increase its likelihood of achievement 2. $3m to $10m in EBITDA is where the majority of the value in a business is created. $3m in EBITDA likely gets a 1x multiple, so $3m of enterprise value. The process of going to $10m (when done well), not only 3.3x’s the EBITDA, but can take the multiple from 1 to 4 -> which is a 13.2x return. The EV goes from $3m to $40m, and that is the stage we are in right now as a business. 3. LTV:CAC are two metrics you must have staring at you and constantly audited. LTV = lifetime value of the customer CAC = customer acquisition cost The scope of calculating those is beyond this write-up, but basically you want this metric to be ~8:1 or higher when aggressively scaling a service-based business. On top of that, these are the only two metrics that you can “improve” in your business → either making customers worth more or reducing the cost to acquire them. You should be able to tie every project on your list directly to the improvement of one of these metrics. 4. We need a single dashboard with the most important metrics in the business. The quality of the dashboard is: • How many people use it on a daily basis • And how clearly they can connect their performance to the performance of the main numbers on the dashboard. We have data thrown about across Airtable, Google Sheets, and various Slack channels. Now, it’s time to unite them such that we can make even better decisions as a team. 5. Leveling up in business is transitioning from selling to people to selling to employees. In the beginning, you are the one creating all of the value. Over time, you will replace yourself out of certain functions that are customer-facing (if you are approaching business correctly). However, your job then becomes selling to your employees to spark their highest performance and retain them. 6. Brand is the best way to improve LTV and reduce CAC at the same time. It makes it cheaper to acquire customers since you have fixed media expenses (just labor) but unlimited upside in the number of eyeballs you can reach. It increases LTV because the continued content you create makes customers likely to keep purchasing because they associate the good content with the purchase they made, whether it’s free content or not. 7. Every single thing in your business is trainable, you just lack the skill of training. Seeing their presentations, their handshakes, the way they repeat the question back to the audience, it was so clear that Alex & Leila did this first, then obsessively role-played and drilled each person on their performance until it was indistinguishable from theirs. 8. The people doing it at the highest level of an obsessive, intentional standard. It was so evident the way these employees conducted themselves that they: • Loved working there • Loved the culture of high performance • And had been trained with extreme repetition and attention to detail 9. Past $3-5m in revenue, anything “new” starts with “who” not “how.” I made the mistake last year of trying to “bootstrap” our cold ads initiative (while continuing to run the rest of the business & sales team). I spent roughly ~200 hours on this throughout the year, which took time away from both my content and the management of the sales team. But for whatever reason, I thought I “had” to be the one who got it off the ground, then handed it off to a new hire or media buyer. But I had the sequence flipped. I should have spent the first 50 hours finding a world-class director of paid marketing, someone with far more experience than me building out a cold traffic acquisition system. Heck, I could have even spent 200 hours on it and ended up with a far greater return than I ended up with. 10. Excellence is a remarkably high number of extremely small details done well. Throughout the workshop, I paid close attention to the event operations, taking notes on how to run a great in-person event in case we wanted to do so in the future. Several things stood out that were clearly “iterations” from prior events, all based around eliminating the small, annoying parts of attending any kind of seminar. • High-quality food • Greeters at the door • Clear bathroom signs • A barista for fresh coffee • WiFi signs posted everywhere • Constant 15-minute breaks every 90 minutes The list goes on and on. 11. Any change you make in a business you should expect a 20% “decrease” in performance to start. That makes the hurdle rate to doing “new” at least 20% for it to be worth it, and arguably 40%. This happens because the switching cost leads to an immediate drop just from having to retrain the team. Change a meeting cadence, change a sales script, change an onboarding flow, all of these are going to come with a switching cost the team must overcome. Therefore, the highest risk-adjusted return is always to just do more or better or whatever you’re already doing, rather than add something new. 12. The ultimate size of the business is the sum of the intelligence of its people. Alex laid out this golden nugget during one of his talks and I found it interesting for a few reasons. First, because of his definition of intelligence = speed of learning, that means the ultimate size of the company is how quickly everyone can learn things. And so said another way, the ultimate size of the company is correlated to the speed of its iterations. The second reason I found this interesting is because you can create a culture of iteration through constant, rapid feedback on every behavior. And when I say constant, I mean constant. You could tell they’ve built this culture by the way their presenters all presented the exact same way as Alex and Leila. Aaand that’s it! I go deeper into all these lessons in this video, check it out: Timestamps 00:37 The Fastest Moving Entrepreneurs Are Obsessive Resource Allocators 04:09 $3m To $10m EBITDA Is Where The Majority Of The Value In A Business Is Created 07:00 LTV:CAC Are Two Metrics You Must Have Staring At You 10:04 You Need A Single Dashboard With The Most Important Metrics In The Business 12:03 Leveling Up In Business Is Transitioning To Selling To People To Selling To Employees 14:10 Brand Is The Best Way To Improve LTV And Reduce CAC At The Same Time 16:02 Every Single Thing In Your Business Is Trainable, You Just Lack The Skill Of Training 18:54 The People Doing It At The Highest Level Have An Obsessive, Intentional Standard 20:04 Past $3-5m In Revenue, Anything "New" Starts With "Who" Not "How" 23:33 Excellence Is A Remarkably High Number Of Extremely Small Details Done Well 26:23 Any Change You Make In A Business You Should Expect A 20% "Decrease" In Performance To Start 28:07 The Ultimate Size Of The Business Is The Sum Of The Intelligence Of It's People

Dickie Bush 🚢

62,036 views • 1 year ago

The rise of ZXMOTO and its founder, Zhang Xue, isn’t just another business success story; it is a disruptive masterclass in how a "challenger brand" can dismantle the decades-long hegemony of Japanese and European giants. While traditional powerhouses like Honda, Yamaha, and Ducati have long relied on their legacy and massive economies of scale, ZXMOTO has sprinted past them by weaponizing three distinct advantages: unfiltered passion, radical R&D reinvestment, and the world’s most agile manufacturing ecosystem. 1. The "Pegasus" Factor: Founder-Led Obsession In an industry often governed by corporate committees and "safe" incremental updates, Zhang Xue is a glaring anomaly. Known as the real-life version of the film Pegasus (a story of a grassroots racing dreamer), Zhang’s background as a self-taught mechanic gives him a technical intimacy with his products that most CEOs lack. *Authenticity as a Brand: Zhang doesn't just sell bikes; he lives them. From chasing TV crews at age 19 to personally leading rally teams, his "all-in" persona resonates with a new generation of riders tired of sterile corporate marketing. *The "Kill or Be Killed" Mindset: His decision to leave his previous successful venture (Kove Moto) to start ZXMOTO in 2024 specifically to chase WorldSBK glory shows a commitment to performance over profit—a gamble that has paid off in brand prestige. 2. Speed Over Legacy: The Chongqing Edge The Japanese "Big Four" have spent decades optimizing global supply chains, which, while efficient, can be slow to pivot. ZXMOTO, however, is a product of Chongqing, the "Motorcycle Capital of the World." *Hyper-Local Agility: With over 400 suppliers within a single city, ZXMOTO can iterate on a design in weeks what takes traditional brands months or years. *Cost-to-Performance Ratio: This ecosystem allowed ZXMOTO to launch the 820RR-RS—a bike that dominated the 2026 WorldSSP in Portugal—at a fraction of the cost of its European competitors. When a $6,000 bike beats a $20,000+ Ducati by nearly four seconds, the "value" conversation shifts from "cheap" to "superior engineering." 3. Radical R&D: Buying the Future Critics often dismiss new Chinese brands as "copycats." Zhang Xue silenced this narrative through sheer financial force. While industry standard R&D spending hovers around 3–5% of revenue, ZXMOTO has pushed its investment to nearly 10%. "ZXMOTO is investing nearly 70 million yuan annually in R&D, with plans to double that in 2026. They aren't just building bikes; they are buying the technological lead." By focusing on high-RPM engines and lightweight materials (like the 820RR’s class-leading power-to-weight ratio), they have bypassed the "entry-level" phase and jumped straight into the high-performance tier where Japanese brands once felt untouchable. 4. Racing as the Ultimate Litmus Test ZXMOTO’s strategy of "Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday" is an old-school philosophy executed with modern precision. By entering the World Supersport (WorldSSP) category—a production-based series—they proved that their street bikes are fundamentally superior. *Global Validation: The double-victory in Portugal (March 2026) wasn't just a trophy; it was a global certificate of quality. It shattered the "Made in China" stigma in real-time, leading to over 5,500 pre-orders in less than a week. *The Psychological Shift: For the first time, Western and Japanese riders aren't looking at ZXMOTO because it’s cheaper—they’re looking at it because it’s faster. Conclusion: A New Era of Competition The success of ZXMOTO and Zhang Xue signals that the "cut-throat" nature of the motorcycle industry has changed. The Japanese brands can no longer rely on the assumption of superior reliability or engineering. ZXMOTO has proven that when you combine China’s manufacturing muscle with a founder’s fanatical vision, you don't just join the race—you lead it. The era of the "Big Four" is officially over; the era of the Global Challenger has begun.
2:30

The rise of ZXMOTO and its founder, Zhang Xue, isn’t just another business success story; it is a disruptive masterclass in how a "challenger brand" can dismantle the decades-long hegemony of Japanese and European giants. While traditional powerhouses like Honda, Yamaha, and Ducati have long relied on their legacy and massive economies of scale, ZXMOTO has sprinted past them by weaponizing three distinct advantages: unfiltered passion, radical R&D reinvestment, and the world’s most agile manufacturing ecosystem. 1. The "Pegasus" Factor: Founder-Led Obsession In an industry often governed by corporate committees and "safe" incremental updates, Zhang Xue is a glaring anomaly. Known as the real-life version of the film Pegasus (a story of a grassroots racing dreamer), Zhang’s background as a self-taught mechanic gives him a technical intimacy with his products that most CEOs lack. *Authenticity as a Brand: Zhang doesn't just sell bikes; he lives them. From chasing TV crews at age 19 to personally leading rally teams, his "all-in" persona resonates with a new generation of riders tired of sterile corporate marketing. *The "Kill or Be Killed" Mindset: His decision to leave his previous successful venture (Kove Moto) to start ZXMOTO in 2024 specifically to chase WorldSBK glory shows a commitment to performance over profit—a gamble that has paid off in brand prestige. 2. Speed Over Legacy: The Chongqing Edge The Japanese "Big Four" have spent decades optimizing global supply chains, which, while efficient, can be slow to pivot. ZXMOTO, however, is a product of Chongqing, the "Motorcycle Capital of the World." *Hyper-Local Agility: With over 400 suppliers within a single city, ZXMOTO can iterate on a design in weeks what takes traditional brands months or years. *Cost-to-Performance Ratio: This ecosystem allowed ZXMOTO to launch the 820RR-RS—a bike that dominated the 2026 WorldSSP in Portugal—at a fraction of the cost of its European competitors. When a $6,000 bike beats a $20,000+ Ducati by nearly four seconds, the "value" conversation shifts from "cheap" to "superior engineering." 3. Radical R&D: Buying the Future Critics often dismiss new Chinese brands as "copycats." Zhang Xue silenced this narrative through sheer financial force. While industry standard R&D spending hovers around 3–5% of revenue, ZXMOTO has pushed its investment to nearly 10%. "ZXMOTO is investing nearly 70 million yuan annually in R&D, with plans to double that in 2026. They aren't just building bikes; they are buying the technological lead." By focusing on high-RPM engines and lightweight materials (like the 820RR’s class-leading power-to-weight ratio), they have bypassed the "entry-level" phase and jumped straight into the high-performance tier where Japanese brands once felt untouchable. 4. Racing as the Ultimate Litmus Test ZXMOTO’s strategy of "Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday" is an old-school philosophy executed with modern precision. By entering the World Supersport (WorldSSP) category—a production-based series—they proved that their street bikes are fundamentally superior. *Global Validation: The double-victory in Portugal (March 2026) wasn't just a trophy; it was a global certificate of quality. It shattered the "Made in China" stigma in real-time, leading to over 5,500 pre-orders in less than a week. *The Psychological Shift: For the first time, Western and Japanese riders aren't looking at ZXMOTO because it’s cheaper—they’re looking at it because it’s faster. Conclusion: A New Era of Competition The success of ZXMOTO and Zhang Xue signals that the "cut-throat" nature of the motorcycle industry has changed. The Japanese brands can no longer rely on the assumption of superior reliability or engineering. ZXMOTO has proven that when you combine China’s manufacturing muscle with a founder’s fanatical vision, you don't just join the race—you lead it. The era of the "Big Four" is officially over; the era of the Global Challenger has begun.

Ignis Rex

10,289 views • 4 months ago

Canadian Solar [Full Investment Thesis]: Everything You Need to Know About $CSIQ “THE GREAT SOLAR RECKONING” ☀️ 🔋$CSIQ became my largest position earlier this year, after I had been studying the company since 2023. Here is my 250-page, ~three-hour presentation on Canadian Solar. I made this video to compress the 1,000+ hours of work already done here, hopefully helping speed up the learning curve for anyone interested.☀️🔋 This is not meant to be flawless. It is meant to be done. I believe $CSIQ is entering one of the most promising periods in its history. With $15B+ in total assets, three multi-billion-dollar businesses spanning solar manufacturing, storage manufacturing, and project development across six continents, and a mere ~$1B market capitalization, Canadian Solar is poised to be one of the top energy performers in 2026. The market has left this company for dead. But underneath the surface, the foundations of the business have been getting stronger: - While the solar industry wrongly spent on building overcapacity, Canadian Solar was one of the few companies slowing down and investing upstream into its project development arm. - While everyone looked to globalize supply chains, Canadian Solar has been building its manufacturing presence in the U.S. since 2023. - While much of the industry was still debating battery storage, Canadian Solar was already building gigawatt-scale projects in 2021. Today, it is reaping the benefits of having been a first mover. This is the story of a company that, despite operating in a ruthless and complicated industry, has consistently been deliberate and rational in its capital allocation decisions. It remains founder-led, with the founder still owning ~20% of the company. Shareholder value creation will always be top of mind, regardless of the market’s current irrationality. The solar industry, like every commodity industry, is deeply cyclical. I am convinced we have already seen the worst of it, and that better profitability is ahead for equipment manufacturers. This is already starting to show in CSI Solar’s Q1 2026 results, with $100M+ in operating profit for the quarter. The supply-demand imbalance for electricity should result in excess profitability. $CSIQ is about to make the undeniable obvious: Canadian Solar is a Western (actually, global) leader in renewable energy. Not middle of the pack. At the very top. They produce ~25 GW of solar modules per year and ~15 GWh of storage per year. For reference, the entire U.S. added roughly 60 GW of total generation capacity in 2025. And they do not only manufacture. They also develop, engineer, construct, and operate billions of dollars of energy assets. That creates a powerful learning and feedback loop between manufacturing and operations, allowing them to stay ahead of the curve. Their BESS experience is the clearest example. At first glance, my estimates and projections may look overly optimistic. But I would ask you to take the time to analyze each one individually. I think you will see that even my bull case uses assumptions that many people already treat as base case assumptions for comparable companies such as $FLNC, $TE, $FSLR, $AMRC, $NXT, and others. My base case assumes roughly half the profitability the industry expects from peers, and still results in an ~10x investment opportunity. Not growing into it. Worth that today. Please feel free to share your thoughts, feedback, questions, and pushback!! ☀️☀️🔋🔋 Timeline CSIQ: 0:00 Introduction 1:38 Executive Summary 11:35 Macro 18:15 Corporate History 21:00 Management & Team 25:10 Solar Industry & Market 42:47 CSI Solar - the $7B solar behemoth $CSIQ owns 57:00 Project Demand - CSI Solar 1:00:05 BESS Subsidiary with Multi-GWh Firm Orders 1:05:35 Project Demand for e-Storage/BESS 1:11:44 Recurrent Energy - The Multi-Billion Renewable Project Developer 1:34:36 US Manufacturing - 10GWs of Capacity and First Ever to Produce Solar Cells Domestically 1:56:15 Competitors 2:19:29 Litigation 2:28:32 Quality 2:30:52 Valuation & Financial Analysis 2:40:40 Conclusion 2:43:15 Miscellaneous Disclaimer: This post is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, investment advice, or a recommendation to buy or sell $CSIQ or any other security mentioned here. I am not a registered investment advisor (RIA). Always do your own research (DYOR). I and/or accounts under my management or discretion, may currently hold positions in $CSIQ and may purchase or sell shares at any time without further notice. My opinions, price targets, and allocation suggestions are my personal views and can change without prior notice. Investing in stocks involves a significant risk of loss of capital. Past performance is not indicative of future results. If you found this useful, follow me for more deep dives like this. I spend a ridiculous amount of time studying this whole ecosystem. Please like and share this post if you think more people should be aware of how attractive Canadian Solar could be as an investment opportunity.
2:50:23

Canadian Solar [Full Investment Thesis]: Everything You Need to Know About $CSIQ “THE GREAT SOLAR RECKONING” ☀️ 🔋$CSIQ became my largest position earlier this year, after I had been studying the company since 2023. Here is my 250-page, ~three-hour presentation on Canadian Solar. I made this video to compress the 1,000+ hours of work already done here, hopefully helping speed up the learning curve for anyone interested.☀️🔋 This is not meant to be flawless. It is meant to be done. I believe $CSIQ is entering one of the most promising periods in its history. With $15B+ in total assets, three multi-billion-dollar businesses spanning solar manufacturing, storage manufacturing, and project development across six continents, and a mere ~$1B market capitalization, Canadian Solar is poised to be one of the top energy performers in 2026. The market has left this company for dead. But underneath the surface, the foundations of the business have been getting stronger: - While the solar industry wrongly spent on building overcapacity, Canadian Solar was one of the few companies slowing down and investing upstream into its project development arm. - While everyone looked to globalize supply chains, Canadian Solar has been building its manufacturing presence in the U.S. since 2023. - While much of the industry was still debating battery storage, Canadian Solar was already building gigawatt-scale projects in 2021. Today, it is reaping the benefits of having been a first mover. This is the story of a company that, despite operating in a ruthless and complicated industry, has consistently been deliberate and rational in its capital allocation decisions. It remains founder-led, with the founder still owning ~20% of the company. Shareholder value creation will always be top of mind, regardless of the market’s current irrationality. The solar industry, like every commodity industry, is deeply cyclical. I am convinced we have already seen the worst of it, and that better profitability is ahead for equipment manufacturers. This is already starting to show in CSI Solar’s Q1 2026 results, with $100M+ in operating profit for the quarter. The supply-demand imbalance for electricity should result in excess profitability. $CSIQ is about to make the undeniable obvious: Canadian Solar is a Western (actually, global) leader in renewable energy. Not middle of the pack. At the very top. They produce ~25 GW of solar modules per year and ~15 GWh of storage per year. For reference, the entire U.S. added roughly 60 GW of total generation capacity in 2025. And they do not only manufacture. They also develop, engineer, construct, and operate billions of dollars of energy assets. That creates a powerful learning and feedback loop between manufacturing and operations, allowing them to stay ahead of the curve. Their BESS experience is the clearest example. At first glance, my estimates and projections may look overly optimistic. But I would ask you to take the time to analyze each one individually. I think you will see that even my bull case uses assumptions that many people already treat as base case assumptions for comparable companies such as $FLNC, $TE, $FSLR, $AMRC, $NXT, and others. My base case assumes roughly half the profitability the industry expects from peers, and still results in an ~10x investment opportunity. Not growing into it. Worth that today. Please feel free to share your thoughts, feedback, questions, and pushback!! ☀️☀️🔋🔋 Timeline CSIQ: 0:00 Introduction 1:38 Executive Summary 11:35 Macro 18:15 Corporate History 21:00 Management & Team 25:10 Solar Industry & Market 42:47 CSI Solar - the $7B solar behemoth $CSIQ owns 57:00 Project Demand - CSI Solar 1:00:05 BESS Subsidiary with Multi-GWh Firm Orders 1:05:35 Project Demand for e-Storage/BESS 1:11:44 Recurrent Energy - The Multi-Billion Renewable Project Developer 1:34:36 US Manufacturing - 10GWs of Capacity and First Ever to Produce Solar Cells Domestically 1:56:15 Competitors 2:19:29 Litigation 2:28:32 Quality 2:30:52 Valuation & Financial Analysis 2:40:40 Conclusion 2:43:15 Miscellaneous Disclaimer: This post is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, investment advice, or a recommendation to buy or sell $CSIQ or any other security mentioned here. I am not a registered investment advisor (RIA). Always do your own research (DYOR). I and/or accounts under my management or discretion, may currently hold positions in $CSIQ and may purchase or sell shares at any time without further notice. My opinions, price targets, and allocation suggestions are my personal views and can change without prior notice. Investing in stocks involves a significant risk of loss of capital. Past performance is not indicative of future results. If you found this useful, follow me for more deep dives like this. I spend a ridiculous amount of time studying this whole ecosystem. Please like and share this post if you think more people should be aware of how attractive Canadian Solar could be as an investment opportunity.

Lucas Sacerdote🔋

94,712 views • 3 months ago

$GRAB Secret Sauce 🧵 How this company will thrive to $300B MC and beyond! It took me a while to gather the material for this thread. I will link down below other threads I talked extensively on all current and future $GRAB services to avoid making this thread too long. It is very important to understand product roadmap on the SuperApp, and how it will make money over the long-term, and transfer that value creation to shareholders. The closest analogy for new investors to understand is Amazon obsession over customers where $AMZN makes a little bit of money on each transaction to break even, but make the most money on Prime Membership. Or Costco obsession over customers where $COST makes 10-15% margin or lower on most products to break even on operation, but to make the most money on Costco membership fees. Jeff Bezos famously said "investors should invest in the company that obsesses customer experiencein the long term, there's never any misalignment between customer interests and shareholder interests!" The TLDR version: Being Customer Obsessed over Competition. We never heard much where Anthony Tan described or bitter about competition. Because Anthony does pay attention to competition, but he is more focused or obsessed on how to serve customers better at the lowest price possible, those that pay for $GRAB services. It is not just a business, it is a mission from first day of $GRAB or formerly known as MyTeksi. Anthony Tan and Co-founder Hooi Ling Tan both met at a class “Business at the Base of the Pyramid.” This class shaped the years of $GRAB success and today mission, creating a valuable business servicing the mass market, the lower income communities. Now, lets start with Customer Obession. $Grab does not see just users as customers, Anthony Tan views drivers, merchants, and partners are customers as well for long term success of the company. This is a big differentiator that contributed to GRAB success today. A. Hyperfocus on users: Grab emphasizes safety, with 99.9% of rides completed without incidents, and offers affordable options like Saver rides (26% of mobility transactions, 1.5X higher order frequency) alongside high-value services like Premium Rides and GrabUnlimited (3.7X more frequent usage, 2X higher retention). This likely enhances user satisfaction and retention, driving revenue growth, as seen in their Q1 2025 earnings of $773 million, up 18% year-over-year. But it does not stop at rides, it translate this obsession into food/grocery/financial and other services. Anthony Tan centered $GRAB success on affordability and reliability over the long-term since its early startup day. Essentially, the long-term TAM for servicing 2- 3 billion people is to get 30-50% of them on GrabUnlimited. Now it is $4.99 a month, will probably be adjusted to $7-$10 adjusted to inflation 10-15 years from now or around $7-$10B or more subscription revenue straight to net income B. Hyperfocus on Merchants: Grab has significantly focused on merchant growth as a core strategy to expand its ecosystem, particularly through its GrabFood, GrabMart, and financial services like GrabFinance. The reason is simple, these merchants/businesses are bringing in user growth. Businesses also pay GRAB on ea transaction very well, and at the same time using Cheap Loan(provided by Grab) to expand, and pay on GrabAds(this will have the highest margin after GrabUnlimited up to 50-60%). Grab also investing heavily on #AI to help merchants with OpenAI and Anthropic partnerships. The impact is unreal with this core strategy, many merchants today have more than 50-60% of its monhtly sales from $GRAB SuperApp(grew from 10-15% in 2021-2022). This approach has positioned Grab as a leader in Southeast Asia’s on-demand market, with significant potential for further expansion as it continues to innovate and optimize C. Hyperfocus on Drivers: In today world, you will never see $uber or Lyft talking about seeing drivers as customers. GRAB is the only company that sees Drivers as customers, and this focus is critical to maintaining a robust supply of driver-partners to meet consumer demand for ride-hailing, food delivery, and other services. Grab has scaled its driver network significantly since going public day with 5-6m registered driver-partners. Expanding rental/low fee fleets to secure drivers, creating stable employment in its current 8 countries. President Ferdinand R. Marcos Bongbong Marcos recently acknowledged $GRAB's significant impact on employment in the Philippines. All of 8 countries Grab operates in, all presidents and PM have praised Grab contribution on employment in their countries. GRAB makes its the company mission to expand more drivers registered on $GRAB SuperApp. Last Fun Fact, GRAB drivers in its 8 market have much higher income than BA degree holders and in many cases x2 or x3 the average salaries due to Grab Dynamic Pricing to bring supply and demand back to lowest price. AKA when demand is mad high, price will be higher to attract more drivers to bring down price. Drivers financial success is Grab long-term success. Conclusion: Grab's SuperApp success, as evidenced by Q1 2025 financials, is tied to putting customers, drivers, and merchants first. Their focus on safety, affordability, financial inclusion, and upskilling creates a robust ecosystem, reflected in increased MTUs, revenue growth, and profitability. The SuperApp will expand to 3 billion people TAM or more over the long term. 1. User Growth(Transactional Users) 2. GrabAds (expanding beyond SuperApp into Physical Grocery/Fleets) 3. GrabUnlimited( Expanding valuable services/features to make it stupid not to have it) Over the long-term, $GRAB will expand beyond SuperApp. Just like when Amazon has some spare computer capacity and decided to rent it out and became the AWS today, which is a behemoth that's now >4 times bigger than its original shopping business. No, I'm not saying $GRAB is the next Amazon. I'm telling you that with this "Secret Sauce" strategy of customer obsession, Anthony Tan can expand to other ventures with the massive FCF+ and profitable SuperApp to fund it. Disclaimer: I do own a large position in the Private Portfolio, and currently 100% on $GRAB on small public portfolio. This is the public portfolio where I contribute $500-$1000 of my own money. This public portfolio is not intended to be just 100% pure $GRAB, but it is the first position. I will try to keep it under 10 companies, and high quality growth businesses ONLY. I will not bother with garbage or hyped businesses where people just hype x10 x100 x1000 next week/year. You can follow others for that. Everything I wrote here is NOT Financial Advice! Source: Private Sources, Grab Dot Com, Webull, TOS, Bloomberg, Various Asian Media Outlets, Youtube, Anthony Tan, WSJ, Financial Times, Yahoo, Reuters, Jakarta Globe...
12:54

$GRAB Secret Sauce 🧵 How this company will thrive to $300B MC and beyond! It took me a while to gather the material for this thread. I will link down below other threads I talked extensively on all current and future $GRAB services to avoid making this thread too long. It is very important to understand product roadmap on the SuperApp, and how it will make money over the long-term, and transfer that value creation to shareholders. The closest analogy for new investors to understand is Amazon obsession over customers where $AMZN makes a little bit of money on each transaction to break even, but make the most money on Prime Membership. Or Costco obsession over customers where $COST makes 10-15% margin or lower on most products to break even on operation, but to make the most money on Costco membership fees. Jeff Bezos famously said "investors should invest in the company that obsesses customer experiencein the long term, there's never any misalignment between customer interests and shareholder interests!" The TLDR version: Being Customer Obsessed over Competition. We never heard much where Anthony Tan described or bitter about competition. Because Anthony does pay attention to competition, but he is more focused or obsessed on how to serve customers better at the lowest price possible, those that pay for $GRAB services. It is not just a business, it is a mission from first day of $GRAB or formerly known as MyTeksi. Anthony Tan and Co-founder Hooi Ling Tan both met at a class “Business at the Base of the Pyramid.” This class shaped the years of $GRAB success and today mission, creating a valuable business servicing the mass market, the lower income communities. Now, lets start with Customer Obession. $Grab does not see just users as customers, Anthony Tan views drivers, merchants, and partners are customers as well for long term success of the company. This is a big differentiator that contributed to GRAB success today. A. Hyperfocus on users: Grab emphasizes safety, with 99.9% of rides completed without incidents, and offers affordable options like Saver rides (26% of mobility transactions, 1.5X higher order frequency) alongside high-value services like Premium Rides and GrabUnlimited (3.7X more frequent usage, 2X higher retention). This likely enhances user satisfaction and retention, driving revenue growth, as seen in their Q1 2025 earnings of $773 million, up 18% year-over-year. But it does not stop at rides, it translate this obsession into food/grocery/financial and other services. Anthony Tan centered $GRAB success on affordability and reliability over the long-term since its early startup day. Essentially, the long-term TAM for servicing 2- 3 billion people is to get 30-50% of them on GrabUnlimited. Now it is $4.99 a month, will probably be adjusted to $7-$10 adjusted to inflation 10-15 years from now or around $7-$10B or more subscription revenue straight to net income B. Hyperfocus on Merchants: Grab has significantly focused on merchant growth as a core strategy to expand its ecosystem, particularly through its GrabFood, GrabMart, and financial services like GrabFinance. The reason is simple, these merchants/businesses are bringing in user growth. Businesses also pay GRAB on ea transaction very well, and at the same time using Cheap Loan(provided by Grab) to expand, and pay on GrabAds(this will have the highest margin after GrabUnlimited up to 50-60%). Grab also investing heavily on #AI to help merchants with OpenAI and Anthropic partnerships. The impact is unreal with this core strategy, many merchants today have more than 50-60% of its monhtly sales from $GRAB SuperApp(grew from 10-15% in 2021-2022). This approach has positioned Grab as a leader in Southeast Asia’s on-demand market, with significant potential for further expansion as it continues to innovate and optimize C. Hyperfocus on Drivers: In today world, you will never see $uber or Lyft talking about seeing drivers as customers. GRAB is the only company that sees Drivers as customers, and this focus is critical to maintaining a robust supply of driver-partners to meet consumer demand for ride-hailing, food delivery, and other services. Grab has scaled its driver network significantly since going public day with 5-6m registered driver-partners. Expanding rental/low fee fleets to secure drivers, creating stable employment in its current 8 countries. President Ferdinand R. Marcos Bongbong Marcos recently acknowledged $GRAB's significant impact on employment in the Philippines. All of 8 countries Grab operates in, all presidents and PM have praised Grab contribution on employment in their countries. GRAB makes its the company mission to expand more drivers registered on $GRAB SuperApp. Last Fun Fact, GRAB drivers in its 8 market have much higher income than BA degree holders and in many cases x2 or x3 the average salaries due to Grab Dynamic Pricing to bring supply and demand back to lowest price. AKA when demand is mad high, price will be higher to attract more drivers to bring down price. Drivers financial success is Grab long-term success. Conclusion: Grab's SuperApp success, as evidenced by Q1 2025 financials, is tied to putting customers, drivers, and merchants first. Their focus on safety, affordability, financial inclusion, and upskilling creates a robust ecosystem, reflected in increased MTUs, revenue growth, and profitability. The SuperApp will expand to 3 billion people TAM or more over the long term. 1. User Growth(Transactional Users) 2. GrabAds (expanding beyond SuperApp into Physical Grocery/Fleets) 3. GrabUnlimited( Expanding valuable services/features to make it stupid not to have it) Over the long-term, $GRAB will expand beyond SuperApp. Just like when Amazon has some spare computer capacity and decided to rent it out and became the AWS today, which is a behemoth that's now >4 times bigger than its original shopping business. No, I'm not saying $GRAB is the next Amazon. I'm telling you that with this "Secret Sauce" strategy of customer obsession, Anthony Tan can expand to other ventures with the massive FCF+ and profitable SuperApp to fund it. Disclaimer: I do own a large position in the Private Portfolio, and currently 100% on $GRAB on small public portfolio. This is the public portfolio where I contribute $500-$1000 of my own money. This public portfolio is not intended to be just 100% pure $GRAB, but it is the first position. I will try to keep it under 10 companies, and high quality growth businesses ONLY. I will not bother with garbage or hyped businesses where people just hype x10 x100 x1000 next week/year. You can follow others for that. Everything I wrote here is NOT Financial Advice! Source: Private Sources, Grab Dot Com, Webull, TOS, Bloomberg, Various Asian Media Outlets, Youtube, Anthony Tan, WSJ, Financial Times, Yahoo, Reuters, Jakarta Globe...

Mike

209,603 views • 1 year ago

$AMD Strategic Price Positioning Long🧵 AMD is increasingly the most hated semi stock that can rival $NVDA dominance in GPUs and software(Cuda v. ROCm). $AMD is also the most under-owned among all Funds in 2025 according to Bank of America! For what I learnt for years as an investor with Dr. Lisa Su, all analysts and market are underestimate Dr. Su leadership. $AMD is capable of raising price, making high quality hardware with software. Dr. Su or AMD choice to adopt a lower price strategy to gain market share is a deliberate and multifacets approach rooted in competitive positioning, market dynamics, and long-term growth objectives. As an investor, it may take time like CPUs and embedded to see margin improving. 1. . Penetration Pricing to Challenge Dominant Competitors AMD has historically positioned itself as a cost-effective alternative to dominant players like Intel in CPUs and Nvidia in GPUs. By setting prices lower than competitors, AMD aims to attract customers and quickly gain market share. This is a classic penetration pricing strategy, where the goal is to capture a significant portion of the market by offering high-performance products at a lower price point. ~CPU Market Example: When AMD launched its Ryzen processors in 2017, it priced them competitively compared to Intel's Core processors, emphasizing a better price-to-performance ratio. Ryzen CPUs offered higher core counts and multi-core performance at lower prices, appealing to cost-conscious consumers, gamers, and professionals. This strategy helped AMD increase its CPU market share to 16.6% by early 2025, narrowing the gap with Intel. ~GPU Market Context: In the GPU market, where Nvidia holds an 88% share compared to AMD's 12%, AMD has been criticized for not launching GPUs at low enough prices to compete effectively. However, posts on X and articles suggest AMD is shifting its GPU strategy to focus on mainstream, cost-effective products rather than high-end enthusiast segments, aiming to regain market share through competitive pricing. 2. Appealing to Cost-Conscious Market Segments AMD targets price-sensitive customers, including gamers, small businesses, and enterprises looking for high-performance computing at a lower cost. This is particularly effective in segments where performance is critical, but budgets are constrained. ~Value Proposition: AMD’s Ryzen and EPYC processors, as well as Radeon GPUs, are designed to deliver performance comparable to or better than competitors in specific workloads (e.g., multi-core processing or AI compute) at a lower price. For example, Ryzen processors have been noted for their superior multi-core performance compared to Intel CPUs at similar or lower price points, making them attractive for tasks like video editing or gaming. ~AI and Data Center: In the AI and data center markets, AMD’s cost-effective Instinct MI300X GPUs and EPYC CPUs target enterprises seeking affordable alternatives to Nvidia’s expensive AI ecosystem. This strategy taps into an underleveraged market segment that Nvidia’s broad, premium-priced AI solutions may not fully address. 3. Building Scale and Developer Support AMD’s leadership, including Jack Huynh, has emphasized the importance of scale—gaining a larger market share to attract developer support and optimize software ecosystems. A lower price strategy helps AMD achieve this by increasing adoption among consumers and enterprises. ~Gaming GPUs: By focusing on mainstream GPUs with competitive pricing (e.g., targeting an 80% addressable market rather than the high-end 10%), AMD aims to build a larger user base. This scale encourages developers to optimize games for AMD’s technologies, such as FSR 3 (FidelityFX Super Resolution) and Anti-Lag 2, improving the ecosystem and competitiveness against Nvidia’s CUDA platform. ~Open Ecosystem in AI: AMD’s open-source ROCm platform contrasts with Nvidia’s proprietary CUDA, appealing to developers who prefer flexibility. Lower-priced hardware makes it easier for developers to adopt AMD’s solutions, fostering a broader AI software ecosystem. 4. Historical Context and Brand Positioning Since its founding in 1969, AMD has positioned itself as a challenger brand, often acting as a “second source” supplier to Intel. This role required competitive pricing to gain a foothold in markets dominated by established players. Over time, AMD has built a reputation for quality and affordability, reinforced by products like the Am9080 (a reverse-engineered Intel 8080) and modern Ryzen and EPYC lines. This historical strategy of undercutting competitors’ prices while delivering comparable performance continues to define AMD’s approach. 5. Countering Competitor Dominance AMD operates in highly competitive markets where Intel and Nvidia have significant advantages in brand recognition, market share, and ecosystems. A lower price strategy is a pragmatic way to disrupt this in CPUs: ~Intel’s historical dominance in the CPU market (servers, desktops, and laptops) has been challenged by AMD’s Ryzen and EPYC processors, which offer better value. For instance, AMD’s EPYC CPUs have driven a 122% year-over-year revenue increase in the data center segment, partly due to their cost-effectiveness, helping AMD capture 94% of CPU sales at some retailers. ~Nvidia in GPUs: Nvidia’s 88% GPU market share and premium pricing (e.g., high-end GPUs like the RTX 4090) leave room for AMD to compete in the mid-to-low range. However, AMD’s failure to launch GPUs at sufficiently low prices (e.g., the RX 7900 XT at $900 instead of its current $680) has limited its success, prompting a strategic shift toward more aggressive pricing in future RDNA 4 GPUs. 6. Market Share as a Long-Term Investment AMD’s lower price strategy is not just about immediate sales but also about long-term market positioning. By capturing market share, AMD can: ~Increase Brand Loyalty: Affordable, high-performance products build customer loyalty, especially among gamers and small businesses, creating a foundation for future sales. ~Drive Revenue Growth: Market share gains in CPUs (e.g., 16.6% in 2025) and data centers (e.g., $3.5 billion in Q3 revenue) translate into higher revenue, even if margins are initially lower. ~Influence Industry Standards: Greater market presence allows AMD to influence hardware and software standards, such as pushing for open-source AI frameworks or gaming optimizations, reducing reliance on competitors’ proprietary systems. 7. Challenges and Risks While effective, AMD’s lower price strategy carries risks: ~Profitability Concerns: Lower prices can compress profit margins, and some analysts note that AMD’s high stock valuation expects future profitability that may be delayed if pricing remains aggressive. ~Perception of Quality: Persistently low prices risk positioning AMD as a “budget” brand, potentially undermining its ability to compete in premium segments. ~Competitor Response: Intel and Nvidia can counter with price cuts or superior features, as seen with Nvidia’s feature-rich GPUs. AMD must balance price with innovation to avoid being outmaneuvered. 8. Strategic Shift in GPUs Recent reports indicate AMD is adjusting its GPU strategy to prioritize market share over competing in the high-end enthusiast segment. For the upcoming Radeon RX 8000 series (RDNA 4), AMD is focusing on mainstream GPUs priced competitively to appeal to a broader audience, rather than chasing Nvidia’s high-end dominance. This shift aligns with AMD’s broader goal of achieving 40–50% market share by targeting the “80%” of the market that prioritizes affordability over premium features. Lastly, AMD’s lower price strategy is a calculated move to disrupt Intel and Nvidia’s dominance, capture market share, and build scale for long-term growth. By offering high-performance CPUs and GPUs at competitive prices, AMD appeals to cost-conscious consumers and enterprises, particularly in the CPU and AI markets, where it has seen significant gains (e.g., 16.6% CPU market share and $3.5 billion in data center revenue). Recent price increase on MI350 and MI355 and more on MI400 signaled #AI chip leadership and pricing power, which will result in significant top and bottom line growth.
5:19

$AMD Strategic Price Positioning Long🧵 AMD is increasingly the most hated semi stock that can rival $NVDA dominance in GPUs and software(Cuda v. ROCm). $AMD is also the most under-owned among all Funds in 2025 according to Bank of America! For what I learnt for years as an investor with Dr. Lisa Su, all analysts and market are underestimate Dr. Su leadership. $AMD is capable of raising price, making high quality hardware with software. Dr. Su or AMD choice to adopt a lower price strategy to gain market share is a deliberate and multifacets approach rooted in competitive positioning, market dynamics, and long-term growth objectives. As an investor, it may take time like CPUs and embedded to see margin improving. 1. . Penetration Pricing to Challenge Dominant Competitors AMD has historically positioned itself as a cost-effective alternative to dominant players like Intel in CPUs and Nvidia in GPUs. By setting prices lower than competitors, AMD aims to attract customers and quickly gain market share. This is a classic penetration pricing strategy, where the goal is to capture a significant portion of the market by offering high-performance products at a lower price point. ~CPU Market Example: When AMD launched its Ryzen processors in 2017, it priced them competitively compared to Intel's Core processors, emphasizing a better price-to-performance ratio. Ryzen CPUs offered higher core counts and multi-core performance at lower prices, appealing to cost-conscious consumers, gamers, and professionals. This strategy helped AMD increase its CPU market share to 16.6% by early 2025, narrowing the gap with Intel. ~GPU Market Context: In the GPU market, where Nvidia holds an 88% share compared to AMD's 12%, AMD has been criticized for not launching GPUs at low enough prices to compete effectively. However, posts on X and articles suggest AMD is shifting its GPU strategy to focus on mainstream, cost-effective products rather than high-end enthusiast segments, aiming to regain market share through competitive pricing. 2. Appealing to Cost-Conscious Market Segments AMD targets price-sensitive customers, including gamers, small businesses, and enterprises looking for high-performance computing at a lower cost. This is particularly effective in segments where performance is critical, but budgets are constrained. ~Value Proposition: AMD’s Ryzen and EPYC processors, as well as Radeon GPUs, are designed to deliver performance comparable to or better than competitors in specific workloads (e.g., multi-core processing or AI compute) at a lower price. For example, Ryzen processors have been noted for their superior multi-core performance compared to Intel CPUs at similar or lower price points, making them attractive for tasks like video editing or gaming. ~AI and Data Center: In the AI and data center markets, AMD’s cost-effective Instinct MI300X GPUs and EPYC CPUs target enterprises seeking affordable alternatives to Nvidia’s expensive AI ecosystem. This strategy taps into an underleveraged market segment that Nvidia’s broad, premium-priced AI solutions may not fully address. 3. Building Scale and Developer Support AMD’s leadership, including Jack Huynh, has emphasized the importance of scale—gaining a larger market share to attract developer support and optimize software ecosystems. A lower price strategy helps AMD achieve this by increasing adoption among consumers and enterprises. ~Gaming GPUs: By focusing on mainstream GPUs with competitive pricing (e.g., targeting an 80% addressable market rather than the high-end 10%), AMD aims to build a larger user base. This scale encourages developers to optimize games for AMD’s technologies, such as FSR 3 (FidelityFX Super Resolution) and Anti-Lag 2, improving the ecosystem and competitiveness against Nvidia’s CUDA platform. ~Open Ecosystem in AI: AMD’s open-source ROCm platform contrasts with Nvidia’s proprietary CUDA, appealing to developers who prefer flexibility. Lower-priced hardware makes it easier for developers to adopt AMD’s solutions, fostering a broader AI software ecosystem. 4. Historical Context and Brand Positioning Since its founding in 1969, AMD has positioned itself as a challenger brand, often acting as a “second source” supplier to Intel. This role required competitive pricing to gain a foothold in markets dominated by established players. Over time, AMD has built a reputation for quality and affordability, reinforced by products like the Am9080 (a reverse-engineered Intel 8080) and modern Ryzen and EPYC lines. This historical strategy of undercutting competitors’ prices while delivering comparable performance continues to define AMD’s approach. 5. Countering Competitor Dominance AMD operates in highly competitive markets where Intel and Nvidia have significant advantages in brand recognition, market share, and ecosystems. A lower price strategy is a pragmatic way to disrupt this in CPUs: ~Intel’s historical dominance in the CPU market (servers, desktops, and laptops) has been challenged by AMD’s Ryzen and EPYC processors, which offer better value. For instance, AMD’s EPYC CPUs have driven a 122% year-over-year revenue increase in the data center segment, partly due to their cost-effectiveness, helping AMD capture 94% of CPU sales at some retailers. ~Nvidia in GPUs: Nvidia’s 88% GPU market share and premium pricing (e.g., high-end GPUs like the RTX 4090) leave room for AMD to compete in the mid-to-low range. However, AMD’s failure to launch GPUs at sufficiently low prices (e.g., the RX 7900 XT at $900 instead of its current $680) has limited its success, prompting a strategic shift toward more aggressive pricing in future RDNA 4 GPUs. 6. Market Share as a Long-Term Investment AMD’s lower price strategy is not just about immediate sales but also about long-term market positioning. By capturing market share, AMD can: ~Increase Brand Loyalty: Affordable, high-performance products build customer loyalty, especially among gamers and small businesses, creating a foundation for future sales. ~Drive Revenue Growth: Market share gains in CPUs (e.g., 16.6% in 2025) and data centers (e.g., $3.5 billion in Q3 revenue) translate into higher revenue, even if margins are initially lower. ~Influence Industry Standards: Greater market presence allows AMD to influence hardware and software standards, such as pushing for open-source AI frameworks or gaming optimizations, reducing reliance on competitors’ proprietary systems. 7. Challenges and Risks While effective, AMD’s lower price strategy carries risks: ~Profitability Concerns: Lower prices can compress profit margins, and some analysts note that AMD’s high stock valuation expects future profitability that may be delayed if pricing remains aggressive. ~Perception of Quality: Persistently low prices risk positioning AMD as a “budget” brand, potentially undermining its ability to compete in premium segments. ~Competitor Response: Intel and Nvidia can counter with price cuts or superior features, as seen with Nvidia’s feature-rich GPUs. AMD must balance price with innovation to avoid being outmaneuvered. 8. Strategic Shift in GPUs Recent reports indicate AMD is adjusting its GPU strategy to prioritize market share over competing in the high-end enthusiast segment. For the upcoming Radeon RX 8000 series (RDNA 4), AMD is focusing on mainstream GPUs priced competitively to appeal to a broader audience, rather than chasing Nvidia’s high-end dominance. This shift aligns with AMD’s broader goal of achieving 40–50% market share by targeting the “80%” of the market that prioritizes affordability over premium features. Lastly, AMD’s lower price strategy is a calculated move to disrupt Intel and Nvidia’s dominance, capture market share, and build scale for long-term growth. By offering high-performance CPUs and GPUs at competitive prices, AMD appeals to cost-conscious consumers and enterprises, particularly in the CPU and AI markets, where it has seen significant gains (e.g., 16.6% CPU market share and $3.5 billion in data center revenue). Recent price increase on MI350 and MI355 and more on MI400 signaled #AI chip leadership and pricing power, which will result in significant top and bottom line growth.

Mike

38,006 views • 11 months ago

🚨 WARNING: America Is For Sale The EB-5 Visa Is the Pipeline Supercharging Saudi and OIC Influence in Miami How a U.S. investor-visa program gives foreign Islamic power brokers a direct path into America’s institutions — and why conservatives are sounding the alarm. The moment you understand what is happening in Miami — the expansion of Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF), the kingdom’s aggressive acquisition strategy, and the political machinery of the OIC — the EB-5 “Investor Visa” program becomes the final and most dangerous piece of the pipeline. ⚡ Quick Explainer: What Is the OIC? The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is a 57-state Islamic intergovernmental bloc — the second-largest organization in the world after the UN. Saudi Arabia sits at its center. The OIC acts as the collective political arm of the Islamic world, using its unified voting bloc to: drive UN resolutions push global “Islamophobia” standards pressure Western governments export Islamic-aligned legal and cultural norms PIF is the financial engine. The OIC is the political engine. Together they form a coordinated influence strategy. ⚠️ 1. EB-5 Turns U.S. Residency Into a Commodity for Foreign Powers Saudi Arabia and OIC-aligned states don’t immigrate — they invest. EB-5 was built for wealthy foreign nationals, including: state-linked businessmen sovereign fund executives politically connected elites Through EB-5, they can: buy into U.S. real estate obtain permanent residency embed financial networks influence political structures secure long-term footholds All without assimilating or aligning with American interests. This is why conservatives call EB-5: “A citizenship-for-sale program that invites foreign strategic penetration.” ⚠️ 2. EB-5 Is Used by High-Risk Foreign Nationals DHS, FBI, and Senate investigations have repeatedly documented EB-5 applicants from: China (including CCP-linked elites) Gulf monarchies Pakistan Turkey Qatar Saudi Arabia Many are tied directly or indirectly to: state ministries royal families (HELLO SAUDI ARABIA) sovereign funds intelligence-linked networks EB-5 is exactly the type of gateway Saudi Arabia would exploit to plant long-term influence inside America — including Miami. ⚠️ 3. Miami Is One of the Biggest EB-5 Hubs in America Miami real estate has relied on foreign capital for more than a decade, and EB-5 money has flowed into its largest developments. Combine that with: Saudi Arabia building a PIF command center in Miami direct PIF investment offices Saudi-funded conferences new Miami–Riyadh flight routes Miami being positioned as the Saudi hub for Latin America Add EB-5, and Miami becomes: a turnkey gateway for Saudi and OIC-aligned elites to embed themselves permanently into Florida’s political and economic system. This is exactly what conservatives have been warning about. ⚠️ 4. EB-5 Has a Long, Documented History of Fraud and Manipulation Federal investigations have repeatedly confirmed EB-5’s vulnerabilities: Funds diverted for political influence money laundering stolen investor capital fake job-creation claims compromised “regional centers” foreign intelligence-linked applicants Miami’s real-estate market — already a magnet for foreign capital — becomes exponentially more dangerous when combined with: PIF money Saudi strategic interests OIC ideological goals political cheerleaders like Mayor Francis Suarez This is why conservatives view EB-5 as a national security threat, not an economic tool. ⚠️ 5. EB-5 Is the Perfect Vehicle for “Soft Conquest” Saudi Arabia openly describes its strategy: “We are not just investing in things — we are investing in industries.” Industries → systems → influence → power. EB-5 aligns perfectly with that model: embeds foreign Islamic influence on U.S. soil creates permanent legal residency buys political and commercial access builds local economic dependency normalizes long-term foreign presence in American communities From the conservative perspective, this is how a foreign state captures a city without firing a shot. 🔥 BOTTOM LINE Now that Saudi Arabia’s PIF is openly establishing Miami as its American gateway, the EB-5 investor-visa program becomes the most dangerous loophole of all - a direct pipeline for OIC-aligned foreign elites to purchase residency, real estate, influence, and long-term power inside Florida. WHY IS THIS ALLOWED - WHY ARE WE HELPING OUR ENEMIES CONQUER US?
0:44

🚨 WARNING: America Is For Sale The EB-5 Visa Is the Pipeline Supercharging Saudi and OIC Influence in Miami How a U.S. investor-visa program gives foreign Islamic power brokers a direct path into America’s institutions — and why conservatives are sounding the alarm. The moment you understand what is happening in Miami — the expansion of Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF), the kingdom’s aggressive acquisition strategy, and the political machinery of the OIC — the EB-5 “Investor Visa” program becomes the final and most dangerous piece of the pipeline. ⚡ Quick Explainer: What Is the OIC? The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is a 57-state Islamic intergovernmental bloc — the second-largest organization in the world after the UN. Saudi Arabia sits at its center. The OIC acts as the collective political arm of the Islamic world, using its unified voting bloc to: drive UN resolutions push global “Islamophobia” standards pressure Western governments export Islamic-aligned legal and cultural norms PIF is the financial engine. The OIC is the political engine. Together they form a coordinated influence strategy. ⚠️ 1. EB-5 Turns U.S. Residency Into a Commodity for Foreign Powers Saudi Arabia and OIC-aligned states don’t immigrate — they invest. EB-5 was built for wealthy foreign nationals, including: state-linked businessmen sovereign fund executives politically connected elites Through EB-5, they can: buy into U.S. real estate obtain permanent residency embed financial networks influence political structures secure long-term footholds All without assimilating or aligning with American interests. This is why conservatives call EB-5: “A citizenship-for-sale program that invites foreign strategic penetration.” ⚠️ 2. EB-5 Is Used by High-Risk Foreign Nationals DHS, FBI, and Senate investigations have repeatedly documented EB-5 applicants from: China (including CCP-linked elites) Gulf monarchies Pakistan Turkey Qatar Saudi Arabia Many are tied directly or indirectly to: state ministries royal families (HELLO SAUDI ARABIA) sovereign funds intelligence-linked networks EB-5 is exactly the type of gateway Saudi Arabia would exploit to plant long-term influence inside America — including Miami. ⚠️ 3. Miami Is One of the Biggest EB-5 Hubs in America Miami real estate has relied on foreign capital for more than a decade, and EB-5 money has flowed into its largest developments. Combine that with: Saudi Arabia building a PIF command center in Miami direct PIF investment offices Saudi-funded conferences new Miami–Riyadh flight routes Miami being positioned as the Saudi hub for Latin America Add EB-5, and Miami becomes: a turnkey gateway for Saudi and OIC-aligned elites to embed themselves permanently into Florida’s political and economic system. This is exactly what conservatives have been warning about. ⚠️ 4. EB-5 Has a Long, Documented History of Fraud and Manipulation Federal investigations have repeatedly confirmed EB-5’s vulnerabilities: Funds diverted for political influence money laundering stolen investor capital fake job-creation claims compromised “regional centers” foreign intelligence-linked applicants Miami’s real-estate market — already a magnet for foreign capital — becomes exponentially more dangerous when combined with: PIF money Saudi strategic interests OIC ideological goals political cheerleaders like Mayor Francis Suarez This is why conservatives view EB-5 as a national security threat, not an economic tool. ⚠️ 5. EB-5 Is the Perfect Vehicle for “Soft Conquest” Saudi Arabia openly describes its strategy: “We are not just investing in things — we are investing in industries.” Industries → systems → influence → power. EB-5 aligns perfectly with that model: embeds foreign Islamic influence on U.S. soil creates permanent legal residency buys political and commercial access builds local economic dependency normalizes long-term foreign presence in American communities From the conservative perspective, this is how a foreign state captures a city without firing a shot. 🔥 BOTTOM LINE Now that Saudi Arabia’s PIF is openly establishing Miami as its American gateway, the EB-5 investor-visa program becomes the most dangerous loophole of all - a direct pipeline for OIC-aligned foreign elites to purchase residency, real estate, influence, and long-term power inside Florida. WHY IS THIS ALLOWED - WHY ARE WE HELPING OUR ENEMIES CONQUER US?

Amy Mek

76,991 views • 9 months ago

BEARISH ON OPENAI The investment case for OpenAI has never been more precarious than it is right now in late 2025. What was once a company that seemed destined to dominate the artificial intelligence revolution has revealed itself to be a structurally disadvantaged challenger fighting a defensive war on multiple fronts. The company anticipates burning through roughly $9 billion this year on $13 billion in sales, a cash burn rate of approximately 70% of revenue. This is not the profile of a company poised to capture monopolistic profits from a transformative technology; it is the profile of a utility company spending astronomical sums to deliver a commodity product that competitors are increasingly giving away for free. The financial trajectory only becomes more alarming when examined over a longer time horizon. The documents show OpenAI projects that by 2028, its operating losses will balloon to roughly three-quarters of that year’s revenue, driven primarily by ballooning spending on computing costs. The company has painted a rosy picture of eventual profitability by 2029 or 2030, but this projection requires believing that OpenAI can grow revenue from roughly $13 billion today to $125 billion or more while simultaneously maintaining pricing power in a market where every major technology company and numerous startups are racing to commoditize the very product OpenAI sells. The cash burn is expected to reach $115 billion cumulatively through 2029, according to The Information. These numbers represent a staggering bet that requires near-perfect execution across multiple dimensions over half a decade. The most damning evidence against OpenAI’s long-term viability is the evaporation of its technological moat. In 2023, GPT-4 felt like genuine magic, a capability that no other company could replicate. Today, that lead has effectively vanished. The sudden availability of frontier-level open-source models is expected to dramatically accelerate AI development globally, potentially reshaping entire industries and altering the balance of power in the tech world. Meta’s Llama series, Mistral’s increasingly capable models, and even Chinese competitors like DeepSeek have demonstrated that the core technology powering ChatGPT is replicable and, in many cases, distributable for free. When your product becomes commoditized, the economics become brutal, and OpenAI finds itself in the position of trying to sell bottled water in a world where tap water has become indistinguishable in quality. The competitive pressure from open-source alternatives is compounding rapidly. The open source movement in AI has grown exponentially over the past few years. Instead of relying solely on expensive, closed models from major tech companies, developers and researchers worldwide can now access, modify, and improve upon state-of-the-art LLMs. This democratization is existential for OpenAI’s business model. Enterprises that once paid premium prices for API access now have the option to run comparable models on their own infrastructure at a fraction of the cost, with the added benefits of data privacy and customization. The value proposition that justified OpenAI’s premium pricing has eroded faster than anyone anticipated, and there is no indication that this trend will reverse. Perhaps nothing illustrates OpenAI’s structural weakness more clearly than the behavior of its most important partner. Microsoft is dancing to its own tune in the artificial intelligence revolution, and Wall Street cannot stop watching. Despite pouring approximately $13 billion into OpenAI over several years, DA Davidson analyst Gil Luria estimates that just 17 percent of Microsoft’s total Azure revenue comes from artificial intelligence workloads. More critically, only 6 percent of that total ties directly to reselling OpenAI’s models, while approximately 75 percent is generated from Azure AI. Microsoft is building its own models, hedging with Anthropic, and quietly reducing its dependency on the very company it funded. When your largest investor is simultaneously your biggest competitor and is actively developing alternatives to your core product, the strategic implications are dire. Leaders at Microsoft believe Anthropic’s latest models — Claude Sonnet 4, specifically — perform better than OpenAI’s in certain functions, like creating aesthetically pleasing PowerPoint presentations. This is not a minor technical preference; it represents a fundamental shift in how Microsoft views its partnership with OpenAI. Microsoft is dramatically escalating its AI independence strategy. At an internal town hall Thursday, Microsoft AI chief Mustafa Suleyman revealed the company is making “significant investments” in compute capacity to build frontier models that can compete directly with OpenAI, Google, and Meta. The company that was supposed to be OpenAI’s path to distribution and scale is instead preparing for a future where OpenAI is just one vendor among many, if not an outright competitor. The leadership exodus at OpenAI over the past year has been nothing short of catastrophic. In September 2024, Murati announced that she was stepping down as CTO. This move came amid a wider executive exodus as OpenAI chief research officer Bob McGrew and a vice president of research, Barret Zoph, also announced their departures soon after. Mira Murati was not a minor figure; she was instrumental in the development of ChatGPT, Dall-E, and Sora. Her departure, along with co-founder Ilya Sutskever, safety leader Jan Leike, and co-founder John Schulman who joined rival Anthropic, has left CEO Sam Altman without much of the leadership team that helped him build OpenAI into an AI juggernaut. Hannah Wong, the executive who steered OpenAI through its most chaotic period, has announced she’s leaving the company just this month, continuing the pattern of senior departures that suggests something fundamentally broken in the organization’s culture or direction. The distribution problem facing OpenAI may be its most insurmountable challenge. Apple and Google control the smartphones that billions of people use every day. Microsoft controls the productivity software that enterprises depend upon. OpenAI, by contrast, must convince users to deliberately open a separate application and type their queries into a text box. In a world of agentic AI where assistants need access to your email, calendar, and files to be useful, an AI embedded directly into your operating system has an overwhelming structural advantage over a standalone chatbot. OpenAI is trying to be a consumer product company without owning any of the surfaces where consumers actually spend their time, competing against incumbents who can simply bundle AI capabilities directly into products that already have hundreds of millions of daily active users. The nuclear-to-solar analogy captures the fundamental economic transformation that is devastating OpenAI’s business model. Just as nuclear power required enormous upfront capital expenditure for centralized power plants, AI in its current form requires massive data center investments to train and serve models. But the direction of travel is unmistakably toward distributed intelligence that runs locally on devices. A major part of the pitch is practicality. Lample emphasizes that Ministral 3 can run on a single GPU, making it deployable on affordable hardware — from on-premise servers to laptops, robots, and other edge devices that may have limited connectivity. When powerful AI models can run on a smartphone or a laptop without any cloud connection, the entire economic rationale for paying premium prices to access centralized AI infrastructure disappears. OpenAI is building nuclear reactors in a world that is rapidly installing solar panels on every rooftop. The proposed $1 trillion IPO valuation is perhaps the clearest signal that something is deeply wrong with the OpenAI story. In the first half of the year, OpenAI lost $13.5 billion, on revenue of $4.3 billion. It is on track to lose $27 billion for the year. One estimate shows OpenAI will burn $115 billion by 2029. Asking public market investors to pay $1 trillion for a company that loses more than twice as much as it earns is not a growth story; it is an exit strategy. The sophisticated investors who funded OpenAI’s private rounds are looking for a way to transfer their risk to retail investors and pension funds who may not fully understand the unit economics of the business. A recent report by HSBC estimated that the company will remain in the unprofitable category until 2029 and that the company will need an additional $207 billion to fund its ambitions. Sam Altman’s leadership represents another structural liability for the company. His background is as a startup investor and evangelist, not as an operational executive who has scaled a capital-intensive industrial operation. The pivot from nonprofit research lab to for-profit corporation to public benefit corporation to anticipated public company has been accompanied by legal and governance structures designed primarily to protect Altman’s control rather than to create shareholder value. Going public means answering a lot more of those kinds of questions, every single quarter, forever. When asked about financial concerns in a friendly podcast interview, Altman’s dismissive response revealed a leader uncomfortable with the scrutiny that public markets will inevitably bring. The adults in the room have largely departed, leaving a company that desperately needs disciplined execution led by someone whose strengths lie elsewhere. The comparison to Netscape is instructive. Netscape proved that the internet was real and created genuine value, but it had no sustainable moat against an incumbent who could bundle the browser directly into the operating system. OpenAI has proven that large language models are real and valuable, but it faces the same structural disadvantage against incumbents who can bundle AI directly into operating systems, productivity suites, and cloud platforms. The value will accrue to the companies that own the distribution channels and the hardware, not to the company that demonstrated the technology was possible. OpenAI is destined to become a historical footnote, remembered as the company that ignited the AI revolution but failed to capture the economic value it created. The only bull case for OpenAI is the AGI lottery ticket: the possibility that the company achieves artificial general intelligence before anyone else and thereby transcends all normal economic analysis. But there is no evidence that OpenAI is any closer to AGI than Google, Anthropic, or DeepMind. The company’s advantage was never secret research breakthroughs; it was first-mover advantage in commercialization. That advantage has now been erased by competitors who can match or exceed OpenAI’s capabilities while benefiting from existing ecosystems, distribution channels, and the willingness to operate AI as a loss leader to drive engagement with more profitable products. The secret sauce was never secret, and there was never any sauce. The endgame for OpenAI is unlikely to be the triumphant dominance that early investors imagined. The most probable outcomes range from gradual irrelevance as a backend provider, to financial restructuring under pressure from creditors, to absorption by Microsoft or another well-capitalized technology company looking to acquire the remaining talent and intellectual property at a discount. Despite its current losses, OpenAI’s long-term prospects are bolstered by the explosive growth of the AI market. But growth in the overall AI market does not guarantee success for any individual company, particularly one with no moat, no ecosystem, and a cost structure that requires selling a commodity at premium prices. The AI revolution is real, but OpenAI’s role in capturing its economic value is far from assured. For anyone considering an investment in OpenAI at anything close to current valuations, the prudent course is to stay far away and watch from the sidelines as economic reality catches up with hype.
19:01

BEARISH ON OPENAI The investment case for OpenAI has never been more precarious than it is right now in late 2025. What was once a company that seemed destined to dominate the artificial intelligence revolution has revealed itself to be a structurally disadvantaged challenger fighting a defensive war on multiple fronts. The company anticipates burning through roughly $9 billion this year on $13 billion in sales, a cash burn rate of approximately 70% of revenue. This is not the profile of a company poised to capture monopolistic profits from a transformative technology; it is the profile of a utility company spending astronomical sums to deliver a commodity product that competitors are increasingly giving away for free. The financial trajectory only becomes more alarming when examined over a longer time horizon. The documents show OpenAI projects that by 2028, its operating losses will balloon to roughly three-quarters of that year’s revenue, driven primarily by ballooning spending on computing costs. The company has painted a rosy picture of eventual profitability by 2029 or 2030, but this projection requires believing that OpenAI can grow revenue from roughly $13 billion today to $125 billion or more while simultaneously maintaining pricing power in a market where every major technology company and numerous startups are racing to commoditize the very product OpenAI sells. The cash burn is expected to reach $115 billion cumulatively through 2029, according to The Information. These numbers represent a staggering bet that requires near-perfect execution across multiple dimensions over half a decade. The most damning evidence against OpenAI’s long-term viability is the evaporation of its technological moat. In 2023, GPT-4 felt like genuine magic, a capability that no other company could replicate. Today, that lead has effectively vanished. The sudden availability of frontier-level open-source models is expected to dramatically accelerate AI development globally, potentially reshaping entire industries and altering the balance of power in the tech world. Meta’s Llama series, Mistral’s increasingly capable models, and even Chinese competitors like DeepSeek have demonstrated that the core technology powering ChatGPT is replicable and, in many cases, distributable for free. When your product becomes commoditized, the economics become brutal, and OpenAI finds itself in the position of trying to sell bottled water in a world where tap water has become indistinguishable in quality. The competitive pressure from open-source alternatives is compounding rapidly. The open source movement in AI has grown exponentially over the past few years. Instead of relying solely on expensive, closed models from major tech companies, developers and researchers worldwide can now access, modify, and improve upon state-of-the-art LLMs. This democratization is existential for OpenAI’s business model. Enterprises that once paid premium prices for API access now have the option to run comparable models on their own infrastructure at a fraction of the cost, with the added benefits of data privacy and customization. The value proposition that justified OpenAI’s premium pricing has eroded faster than anyone anticipated, and there is no indication that this trend will reverse. Perhaps nothing illustrates OpenAI’s structural weakness more clearly than the behavior of its most important partner. Microsoft is dancing to its own tune in the artificial intelligence revolution, and Wall Street cannot stop watching. Despite pouring approximately $13 billion into OpenAI over several years, DA Davidson analyst Gil Luria estimates that just 17 percent of Microsoft’s total Azure revenue comes from artificial intelligence workloads. More critically, only 6 percent of that total ties directly to reselling OpenAI’s models, while approximately 75 percent is generated from Azure AI. Microsoft is building its own models, hedging with Anthropic, and quietly reducing its dependency on the very company it funded. When your largest investor is simultaneously your biggest competitor and is actively developing alternatives to your core product, the strategic implications are dire. Leaders at Microsoft believe Anthropic’s latest models — Claude Sonnet 4, specifically — perform better than OpenAI’s in certain functions, like creating aesthetically pleasing PowerPoint presentations. This is not a minor technical preference; it represents a fundamental shift in how Microsoft views its partnership with OpenAI. Microsoft is dramatically escalating its AI independence strategy. At an internal town hall Thursday, Microsoft AI chief Mustafa Suleyman revealed the company is making “significant investments” in compute capacity to build frontier models that can compete directly with OpenAI, Google, and Meta. The company that was supposed to be OpenAI’s path to distribution and scale is instead preparing for a future where OpenAI is just one vendor among many, if not an outright competitor. The leadership exodus at OpenAI over the past year has been nothing short of catastrophic. In September 2024, Murati announced that she was stepping down as CTO. This move came amid a wider executive exodus as OpenAI chief research officer Bob McGrew and a vice president of research, Barret Zoph, also announced their departures soon after. Mira Murati was not a minor figure; she was instrumental in the development of ChatGPT, Dall-E, and Sora. Her departure, along with co-founder Ilya Sutskever, safety leader Jan Leike, and co-founder John Schulman who joined rival Anthropic, has left CEO Sam Altman without much of the leadership team that helped him build OpenAI into an AI juggernaut. Hannah Wong, the executive who steered OpenAI through its most chaotic period, has announced she’s leaving the company just this month, continuing the pattern of senior departures that suggests something fundamentally broken in the organization’s culture or direction. The distribution problem facing OpenAI may be its most insurmountable challenge. Apple and Google control the smartphones that billions of people use every day. Microsoft controls the productivity software that enterprises depend upon. OpenAI, by contrast, must convince users to deliberately open a separate application and type their queries into a text box. In a world of agentic AI where assistants need access to your email, calendar, and files to be useful, an AI embedded directly into your operating system has an overwhelming structural advantage over a standalone chatbot. OpenAI is trying to be a consumer product company without owning any of the surfaces where consumers actually spend their time, competing against incumbents who can simply bundle AI capabilities directly into products that already have hundreds of millions of daily active users. The nuclear-to-solar analogy captures the fundamental economic transformation that is devastating OpenAI’s business model. Just as nuclear power required enormous upfront capital expenditure for centralized power plants, AI in its current form requires massive data center investments to train and serve models. But the direction of travel is unmistakably toward distributed intelligence that runs locally on devices. A major part of the pitch is practicality. Lample emphasizes that Ministral 3 can run on a single GPU, making it deployable on affordable hardware — from on-premise servers to laptops, robots, and other edge devices that may have limited connectivity. When powerful AI models can run on a smartphone or a laptop without any cloud connection, the entire economic rationale for paying premium prices to access centralized AI infrastructure disappears. OpenAI is building nuclear reactors in a world that is rapidly installing solar panels on every rooftop. The proposed $1 trillion IPO valuation is perhaps the clearest signal that something is deeply wrong with the OpenAI story. In the first half of the year, OpenAI lost $13.5 billion, on revenue of $4.3 billion. It is on track to lose $27 billion for the year. One estimate shows OpenAI will burn $115 billion by 2029. Asking public market investors to pay $1 trillion for a company that loses more than twice as much as it earns is not a growth story; it is an exit strategy. The sophisticated investors who funded OpenAI’s private rounds are looking for a way to transfer their risk to retail investors and pension funds who may not fully understand the unit economics of the business. A recent report by HSBC estimated that the company will remain in the unprofitable category until 2029 and that the company will need an additional $207 billion to fund its ambitions. Sam Altman’s leadership represents another structural liability for the company. His background is as a startup investor and evangelist, not as an operational executive who has scaled a capital-intensive industrial operation. The pivot from nonprofit research lab to for-profit corporation to public benefit corporation to anticipated public company has been accompanied by legal and governance structures designed primarily to protect Altman’s control rather than to create shareholder value. Going public means answering a lot more of those kinds of questions, every single quarter, forever. When asked about financial concerns in a friendly podcast interview, Altman’s dismissive response revealed a leader uncomfortable with the scrutiny that public markets will inevitably bring. The adults in the room have largely departed, leaving a company that desperately needs disciplined execution led by someone whose strengths lie elsewhere. The comparison to Netscape is instructive. Netscape proved that the internet was real and created genuine value, but it had no sustainable moat against an incumbent who could bundle the browser directly into the operating system. OpenAI has proven that large language models are real and valuable, but it faces the same structural disadvantage against incumbents who can bundle AI directly into operating systems, productivity suites, and cloud platforms. The value will accrue to the companies that own the distribution channels and the hardware, not to the company that demonstrated the technology was possible. OpenAI is destined to become a historical footnote, remembered as the company that ignited the AI revolution but failed to capture the economic value it created. The only bull case for OpenAI is the AGI lottery ticket: the possibility that the company achieves artificial general intelligence before anyone else and thereby transcends all normal economic analysis. But there is no evidence that OpenAI is any closer to AGI than Google, Anthropic, or DeepMind. The company’s advantage was never secret research breakthroughs; it was first-mover advantage in commercialization. That advantage has now been erased by competitors who can match or exceed OpenAI’s capabilities while benefiting from existing ecosystems, distribution channels, and the willingness to operate AI as a loss leader to drive engagement with more profitable products. The secret sauce was never secret, and there was never any sauce. The endgame for OpenAI is unlikely to be the triumphant dominance that early investors imagined. The most probable outcomes range from gradual irrelevance as a backend provider, to financial restructuring under pressure from creditors, to absorption by Microsoft or another well-capitalized technology company looking to acquire the remaining talent and intellectual property at a discount. Despite its current losses, OpenAI’s long-term prospects are bolstered by the explosive growth of the AI market. But growth in the overall AI market does not guarantee success for any individual company, particularly one with no moat, no ecosystem, and a cost structure that requires selling a commodity at premium prices. The AI revolution is real, but OpenAI’s role in capturing its economic value is far from assured. For anyone considering an investment in OpenAI at anything close to current valuations, the prudent course is to stay far away and watch from the sidelines as economic reality catches up with hype.

David Shapiro (L/0)

69,180 views • 7 months ago

Warren Buffett turns 93 today! To celebrate, I'm sharing the greatest lecture he ever gave together with his 94 (!) best investment quotes. 1. Rule No. 1 is never lose money. Rule No. 2 is never forget Rule No. 1. 2. Diversification is a protection against ignorance. It makes very little sense for those who know what they're doing. 3. Do not take yearly results too seriously. Instead, focus on four or five-year averages. 4. All there is to investing is picking good stocks at good times and staying with them as long as they remain good companies. 5. American business - and consequently a basket of stocks - is virtually certain to be worth far more in the years ahead. 6. An investor should act as though he had a lifetime decision card with just twenty punches on it. 7. And so the important thing we do with managers, generally, is to find the .400 hitters and then not tell them how to swing. 8. The most important quality for an investor is temperament, not intellect. You need a temperament that neither derives great pleasure from being with the crowd or against the crowd. 9. Bitcoin has no unique value at all. 10. Buy a stock the way you would buy a house. Understand and like it such that you'd be content to own it in the absence of any market. 11. The years ahead will occasionally deliver major market declines - even panics - that will affect virtually all stocks. No one can tell you when these traumas will occur. 12. I insist on a lot of time being spent, almost every day, to just sit and think. That is very uncommon in American business. 13. Buy companies with strong histories of profitability and with a dominant business franchise. 14. For the investor, a too-high purchase price for the stock of an excellent company can undo the effects of a subsequent decade of favorable business developments. 15. I believe in giving my kids enough so they can do anything, but not so much that they can do nothing. 16. The world went mad. What we learn from history is that people don’t learn from history. 17. The key to investing is not assessing how much an industry is going to affect society, or how much it will grow, but rather determining the competitive advantage of any given company and, above all, the durability of that advantage. 18. Among the various propositions offered to you, if you invested in a very low cost index fund - where you don't put the money in at one time, but average in over 10 years - you'll do better than 90% of people who start investing at the same time. 19. Because if you're wrong and rates go to 2 percent, which I don't think they will, you pay it off. It's a one-way renegotiation. It is an incredibly attractive instrument for the homeowner and you've got a one-way bet. 20. Cash is to a business as oxygen is to an individual: never thought about when it is present, the only thing in mind when it is absent. 21. Don't get caught up with what other people are doing. Being a contrarian isn't the key but being a crowd follower isn't either. You need to detach yourself emotionally. 22. For 240 years it's been a terrible mistake to bet against America, and now is no time to start. 23. I never attempt to make money on the stock market. I buy on the assumption that they could close the market the next day and not reopen it for five years. 24. I have no views as to where it (gold) will be, but the one thing I can tell you is it won't do anything between now and then except look at you. Whereas, you know, Coca-Cola will be making money, and I think Wells Fargo will be making a lot of money, and there will be a lot -- and it's a lot -- it's a lot better to have a goose that keeps laying eggs than a goose that just sits there and eats insurance and storage and a few things like that. 25. I just sit in my office and read all day. 26. I won't say if my candidate doesn't win, and probably half the time they haven't, I'm going to take my ball and go home 27. If returns are going to be 7 or 8 percent and you're paying 1 percent for fees, that makes an enormous difference in how much money you're going to have in retirement. 28. We want products where people feel like kissing you instead of slapping you. 29. If you aren't willing to own a stock for ten years, don't even think about owning it for ten minutes. 30. The most important investment you can make is one in yourself. 31. If you buy things you do not need, soon you will have to sell things you need. 32. If you don't feel comfortable making a rough estimate of the asset's future earnings, just forget it and move on. 33. If you like spending six to eight hours per week working on investments, do it. If you don't, then dollar-cost average into index funds. 34. If you're in the luckiest 1% of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99%. 35. If you're smart, you're going to make a lot of money without borrowing. 36. In the 20th century, the United States endured two world wars and other traumatic and expensive military conflicts; the Depression; a dozen or so recessions and financial panics; oil shocks; a flu epidemic; and the resignation of a disgraced president. Yet the Dow rose from 66 to 11,497. 37. In the 54 years (Charlie Munger and I) have worked together, we have never forgone an attractive purchase because of the macro or political environment, or the views of other people. In fact, these subjects never come up when we make decisions 38. In the business world, the rearview mirror is always clearer than the windshield. 39. Investors should remember that excitement and expenses are their enemies. 40. It is a terrible mistake for investors with long-term horizons to measure their investment 'risk' by their portfolio's ratio of bonds to stocks. 41. It is not necessary to do extraordinary things to get extraordinary results. 42. It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently. 43. The one thing I will tell you is the worst investment you can have is cash. Everybody is talking about cash being king and all that sort of thing. Cash is going to become worth less over time. But good businesses are going to become worth more over time. 44. It's been an ideal period for investors: A climate of fear is their best friend. Those who invest only when commentators are upbeat end up paying a heavy price for meaningless reassurance. 45. It's better to hang out with people better than you. Pick out associates whose behavior is better than yours and you'll drift in that direction. 46. It's better to have a partial interest in the Hope diamond than to own all of a rhinestone. 47. It's far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price. 48. Just pick a broad index like the S&P 500. Don't put your money in all at once; do it over a period of time. 49. Keep things simple and don't swing for the fences. When promised quick profits, respond with a quick "no”. 50. Lose money for the firm, and I will be understanding. Lose a shred of reputation for the firm, and I will be ruthless. 51. Many management teams are just deciding they're gonna buy X billions over X months. That's no way to buy things. You buy when selling for less than they are worth. ... It's not a complicated equation to figure out whether it is beneficial or not to repurchase shares. 52. The difference between successful people and really successful people is that really successful people say no to almost everything. 53. Most people get interested in stocks when everyone else is. The time to get interested is when no one else is. You can't buy what is popular and do well. 54. Never invest in a business you cannot understand. 55. Your premium brand had better be delivering something special, or it’s not going to get the business. 56. One can best prepare themselves for the economic future by investing in your own education. If you study hard and learn at a young age, you will be in the best circumstances to secure your future. 57. The most important thing to do if you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. 58. One thing that could help would be to write down the reason you are buying a stock before your purchase. Write down "I am buying Microsoft at $300 billion because..." Force yourself to write this down. It clarifies your mind and discipline. 59. Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked. 60. Opportunities come infrequently. When it rains gold, put out the bucket, not the thimble. 61. Price is what you pay. Value is what you get. 62. Read 500 pages like this every day. That's how knowledge works. It builds up, like compound interest. All of you can do it, but I guarantee not many of you will do it. 63. Risk comes from not knowing what you're doing. 64. If a business does well, the stock eventually follows. 65. Since I know of no way to reliably predict market movements, I recommend that you purchase Berkshire shares only if you expect to hold them for at least five years. Those who seek short-term profits should look elsewhere. 66. Someone's sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago 67. The best thing that happens to us is when a great company gets into temporary trouble... We want to buy them when they're on the operating table. 68. Speculation is most dangerous when it looks easiest. 69. Stay away from it. It's a mirage, basically...The idea that it has some huge intrinsic value is a joke in my view. 70. The best chance to deploy capital is when things are going down. 71. The stock market is a no-called-strike game. You don't have to swing at everything -- you can wait for your pitch. 72. There is nothing wrong with a 'know nothing' investor who realizes it. The problem is when you are a 'know nothing' investor but you think you know something. 73. This does not bother Charlie and me. Indeed, we enjoy such price declines if we have funds available to increase our positions. 74. Too-big-to-fail is not a fallback position at Berkshire. Instead, we will always arrange our affairs so that any requirements for cash we may conceivably have will be dwarfed by our own liquidity. 75. There are all kinds of businesses that Charlie and I don’t understand, but that doesn’t cause us to stay up at night. It just means we go on to the next one, and that’s what the individual investor should do. 76. You can’t buy what is popular and do well. 77. We never want to count on the kindness of strangers in order to meet tomorrow's obligations. When forced to choose, I will not trade even a night's sleep for the chance of extra profits. 78. We will reject interesting opportunities rather than over-leverage our balance sheet. 79. We've long felt that the only value of stock forecasters is to make fortune tellers look good. Even now, Charlie and I continue to believe that short-term market forecasts are poison and should be kept locked up in a safe place, away from children and also from grown-ups who behave in the market like children. 80. What is smart at one price is stupid at another. 81. What we learn from history is that people don't learn from history. 82. When stock can be bought below a business's value it is probably the best use of cash. 83. When trillions of dollars are managed by Wall Streeters charging high fees, it will usually be the managers who reap outsized profits, not the clients. 84. When we own portions of outstanding businesses with outstanding managements, our favorite holding period is forever. 85. When you have able managers of high character running businesses about which they are passionate, you can have a dozen or more reporting to you and still have time for an afternoon nap. Conversely, if you have even one person reporting to you who is deceitful, inept or uninterested, you will find yourself with more than you can handle. 86. Whether we're talking about socks or stocks, I like buying quality merchandise when it is marked down. 87. Widespread fear is your friend as an investor because it serves up bargain purchases. 88. You are neither right nor wrong because the crowd disagrees with you. You are right because your data and reasoning are right. 89. You can't borrow money at 18 or 20 percent and come out ahead. 90. You can't produce a baby in one month by getting nine women pregnant. 91. The most important quality for an investor is temperament, not intellect… You need a temperament that neither derives great pleasure from being with the crowd or against the crowd. 92. You don't need to be a rocket scientist. Investing is not a game where the guy with the 160 IQ beats the guy with 130 IQ. You only have to be able to evaluate companies within your circle of competence. 93. The size of your circle of competence is not very important; knowing its boundaries, however, is vital.
1:12:41

Warren Buffett turns 93 today! To celebrate, I'm sharing the greatest lecture he ever gave together with his 94 (!) best investment quotes. 1. Rule No. 1 is never lose money. Rule No. 2 is never forget Rule No. 1. 2. Diversification is a protection against ignorance. It makes very little sense for those who know what they're doing. 3. Do not take yearly results too seriously. Instead, focus on four or five-year averages. 4. All there is to investing is picking good stocks at good times and staying with them as long as they remain good companies. 5. American business - and consequently a basket of stocks - is virtually certain to be worth far more in the years ahead. 6. An investor should act as though he had a lifetime decision card with just twenty punches on it. 7. And so the important thing we do with managers, generally, is to find the .400 hitters and then not tell them how to swing. 8. The most important quality for an investor is temperament, not intellect. You need a temperament that neither derives great pleasure from being with the crowd or against the crowd. 9. Bitcoin has no unique value at all. 10. Buy a stock the way you would buy a house. Understand and like it such that you'd be content to own it in the absence of any market. 11. The years ahead will occasionally deliver major market declines - even panics - that will affect virtually all stocks. No one can tell you when these traumas will occur. 12. I insist on a lot of time being spent, almost every day, to just sit and think. That is very uncommon in American business. 13. Buy companies with strong histories of profitability and with a dominant business franchise. 14. For the investor, a too-high purchase price for the stock of an excellent company can undo the effects of a subsequent decade of favorable business developments. 15. I believe in giving my kids enough so they can do anything, but not so much that they can do nothing. 16. The world went mad. What we learn from history is that people don’t learn from history. 17. The key to investing is not assessing how much an industry is going to affect society, or how much it will grow, but rather determining the competitive advantage of any given company and, above all, the durability of that advantage. 18. Among the various propositions offered to you, if you invested in a very low cost index fund - where you don't put the money in at one time, but average in over 10 years - you'll do better than 90% of people who start investing at the same time. 19. Because if you're wrong and rates go to 2 percent, which I don't think they will, you pay it off. It's a one-way renegotiation. It is an incredibly attractive instrument for the homeowner and you've got a one-way bet. 20. Cash is to a business as oxygen is to an individual: never thought about when it is present, the only thing in mind when it is absent. 21. Don't get caught up with what other people are doing. Being a contrarian isn't the key but being a crowd follower isn't either. You need to detach yourself emotionally. 22. For 240 years it's been a terrible mistake to bet against America, and now is no time to start. 23. I never attempt to make money on the stock market. I buy on the assumption that they could close the market the next day and not reopen it for five years. 24. I have no views as to where it (gold) will be, but the one thing I can tell you is it won't do anything between now and then except look at you. Whereas, you know, Coca-Cola will be making money, and I think Wells Fargo will be making a lot of money, and there will be a lot -- and it's a lot -- it's a lot better to have a goose that keeps laying eggs than a goose that just sits there and eats insurance and storage and a few things like that. 25. I just sit in my office and read all day. 26. I won't say if my candidate doesn't win, and probably half the time they haven't, I'm going to take my ball and go home 27. If returns are going to be 7 or 8 percent and you're paying 1 percent for fees, that makes an enormous difference in how much money you're going to have in retirement. 28. We want products where people feel like kissing you instead of slapping you. 29. If you aren't willing to own a stock for ten years, don't even think about owning it for ten minutes. 30. The most important investment you can make is one in yourself. 31. If you buy things you do not need, soon you will have to sell things you need. 32. If you don't feel comfortable making a rough estimate of the asset's future earnings, just forget it and move on. 33. If you like spending six to eight hours per week working on investments, do it. If you don't, then dollar-cost average into index funds. 34. If you're in the luckiest 1% of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99%. 35. If you're smart, you're going to make a lot of money without borrowing. 36. In the 20th century, the United States endured two world wars and other traumatic and expensive military conflicts; the Depression; a dozen or so recessions and financial panics; oil shocks; a flu epidemic; and the resignation of a disgraced president. Yet the Dow rose from 66 to 11,497. 37. In the 54 years (Charlie Munger and I) have worked together, we have never forgone an attractive purchase because of the macro or political environment, or the views of other people. In fact, these subjects never come up when we make decisions 38. In the business world, the rearview mirror is always clearer than the windshield. 39. Investors should remember that excitement and expenses are their enemies. 40. It is a terrible mistake for investors with long-term horizons to measure their investment 'risk' by their portfolio's ratio of bonds to stocks. 41. It is not necessary to do extraordinary things to get extraordinary results. 42. It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently. 43. The one thing I will tell you is the worst investment you can have is cash. Everybody is talking about cash being king and all that sort of thing. Cash is going to become worth less over time. But good businesses are going to become worth more over time. 44. It's been an ideal period for investors: A climate of fear is their best friend. Those who invest only when commentators are upbeat end up paying a heavy price for meaningless reassurance. 45. It's better to hang out with people better than you. Pick out associates whose behavior is better than yours and you'll drift in that direction. 46. It's better to have a partial interest in the Hope diamond than to own all of a rhinestone. 47. It's far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price. 48. Just pick a broad index like the S&P 500. Don't put your money in all at once; do it over a period of time. 49. Keep things simple and don't swing for the fences. When promised quick profits, respond with a quick "no”. 50. Lose money for the firm, and I will be understanding. Lose a shred of reputation for the firm, and I will be ruthless. 51. Many management teams are just deciding they're gonna buy X billions over X months. That's no way to buy things. You buy when selling for less than they are worth. ... It's not a complicated equation to figure out whether it is beneficial or not to repurchase shares. 52. The difference between successful people and really successful people is that really successful people say no to almost everything. 53. Most people get interested in stocks when everyone else is. The time to get interested is when no one else is. You can't buy what is popular and do well. 54. Never invest in a business you cannot understand. 55. Your premium brand had better be delivering something special, or it’s not going to get the business. 56. One can best prepare themselves for the economic future by investing in your own education. If you study hard and learn at a young age, you will be in the best circumstances to secure your future. 57. The most important thing to do if you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. 58. One thing that could help would be to write down the reason you are buying a stock before your purchase. Write down "I am buying Microsoft at $300 billion because..." Force yourself to write this down. It clarifies your mind and discipline. 59. Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked. 60. Opportunities come infrequently. When it rains gold, put out the bucket, not the thimble. 61. Price is what you pay. Value is what you get. 62. Read 500 pages like this every day. That's how knowledge works. It builds up, like compound interest. All of you can do it, but I guarantee not many of you will do it. 63. Risk comes from not knowing what you're doing. 64. If a business does well, the stock eventually follows. 65. Since I know of no way to reliably predict market movements, I recommend that you purchase Berkshire shares only if you expect to hold them for at least five years. Those who seek short-term profits should look elsewhere. 66. Someone's sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago 67. The best thing that happens to us is when a great company gets into temporary trouble... We want to buy them when they're on the operating table. 68. Speculation is most dangerous when it looks easiest. 69. Stay away from it. It's a mirage, basically...The idea that it has some huge intrinsic value is a joke in my view. 70. The best chance to deploy capital is when things are going down. 71. The stock market is a no-called-strike game. You don't have to swing at everything -- you can wait for your pitch. 72. There is nothing wrong with a 'know nothing' investor who realizes it. The problem is when you are a 'know nothing' investor but you think you know something. 73. This does not bother Charlie and me. Indeed, we enjoy such price declines if we have funds available to increase our positions. 74. Too-big-to-fail is not a fallback position at Berkshire. Instead, we will always arrange our affairs so that any requirements for cash we may conceivably have will be dwarfed by our own liquidity. 75. There are all kinds of businesses that Charlie and I don’t understand, but that doesn’t cause us to stay up at night. It just means we go on to the next one, and that’s what the individual investor should do. 76. You can’t buy what is popular and do well. 77. We never want to count on the kindness of strangers in order to meet tomorrow's obligations. When forced to choose, I will not trade even a night's sleep for the chance of extra profits. 78. We will reject interesting opportunities rather than over-leverage our balance sheet. 79. We've long felt that the only value of stock forecasters is to make fortune tellers look good. Even now, Charlie and I continue to believe that short-term market forecasts are poison and should be kept locked up in a safe place, away from children and also from grown-ups who behave in the market like children. 80. What is smart at one price is stupid at another. 81. What we learn from history is that people don't learn from history. 82. When stock can be bought below a business's value it is probably the best use of cash. 83. When trillions of dollars are managed by Wall Streeters charging high fees, it will usually be the managers who reap outsized profits, not the clients. 84. When we own portions of outstanding businesses with outstanding managements, our favorite holding period is forever. 85. When you have able managers of high character running businesses about which they are passionate, you can have a dozen or more reporting to you and still have time for an afternoon nap. Conversely, if you have even one person reporting to you who is deceitful, inept or uninterested, you will find yourself with more than you can handle. 86. Whether we're talking about socks or stocks, I like buying quality merchandise when it is marked down. 87. Widespread fear is your friend as an investor because it serves up bargain purchases. 88. You are neither right nor wrong because the crowd disagrees with you. You are right because your data and reasoning are right. 89. You can't borrow money at 18 or 20 percent and come out ahead. 90. You can't produce a baby in one month by getting nine women pregnant. 91. The most important quality for an investor is temperament, not intellect… You need a temperament that neither derives great pleasure from being with the crowd or against the crowd. 92. You don't need to be a rocket scientist. Investing is not a game where the guy with the 160 IQ beats the guy with 130 IQ. You only have to be able to evaluate companies within your circle of competence. 93. The size of your circle of competence is not very important; knowing its boundaries, however, is vital.

Compounding Quality

620,965 views • 3 years ago

A Drama Academy PhD Explains Why Xiao Zhan Stays Popular Long-Term 👤: If you ask who the real top star in the domestic entertainment industry is, the comment section would probably blow up. But among industry professionals, if any ranking dares to leave out the name Xiao Zhan, then that ranking might as well be thrown straight into the trash. So why do insiders see Xiao Zhan as a stabilizing force, while casual viewers feel he’s especially quiet and low-key. Behind this contrast is the underlying logic that explains how Xiao Zhan can stay popular beyond 2026 and stand out as a one-of-a-kind case. Today, let’s break it down from three psychological angles. First, his socialization path gives him a major advantage. When people look at Xiao Zhan, they shouldn’t just focus on his face, the one that’s topped global “most handsome” lists for six consecutive years. They need to look at his résumé. He debuted at 24. Before that, he graduated from a comprehensive university with a degree in design. He actually worked regular jobs, was a real office worker, started a business, stayed up late, revised drafts, and got worn down by demanding clients. This point is extremely important. Many actors have never worked regular jobs at all. So when they act in workplace dramas, it often feels fake. They’re basically just acting it out. They don’t really know what the real world looks like. But when Xiao Zhan plays Sheng Yang or Xiao Chunsheng, that sense of a real, living person isn’t something he acts. It’s something that’s already in him. In psychology, this is called complete socialization. And for an actor, this is extremely important. Even though I graduated from the Central Academy of Drama, I still think many students who come out of acting programs are lacking in this area. Xiao Zhan brings a designer’s mindset, a professional habit of solving problems, into the entertainment industry. That clarity, together with real workplace experience, is his strongest shield in a world driven by fame and profit. Second, traffic is temporary. Only works truly matter in the long run. Let’s be honest. For most people, the 227 incident would have been a career-ending blow. But for Xiao Zhan, it became a brutal reset of his career. Before that, he was a traffic star supported by fan campaigns. But that storm forced him to go through a psychological transformation early on. On a psychological level, he redefined himself. He clearly understood that traffic and popularity are superficial. Only works are real currency. So he threw himself into the theater, performed A Dream Like a Dream, and at the peak of his popularity, stepped onto the stage of live theater. He spent three years there, training and honing his craft. In psychology, this is called a higher level of desensitization. He stripped away his labels and deliberately put himself into an environment with no filters and no retakes, where he could go all in on his craft. And everyone saw the result. In 2025, The Legend of Zang Hai broke viewership records. During the 2026 New Year crossover period, its ratings share hit legendary status. All of this is the compounded return on those three years of investment. Third, this comes down to the capital side’s sense of psychological security. Here, I’ll have to share a bit of industry insider talk. A lot of people say that Xiao Zhan is “capital’s favorite son.” But honestly, you’re overcomplicating it. The logic of investors is very simple. I invest to make money. Artists who come with low risk and high returns are a guaranteed safe bet. Among top male stars in the domestic entertainment industry, there are only a few real options. Who stays away from messy relationships with female assistants? Who works hard on set, doesn’t cause trouble, cooperates well, and stays professional? In an era where scandals break out at any moment, a top star like Xiao Zhan, with no gossip, no variety shows, who spends his days on set, is basically a low-risk, high-return investment product in the capital market. Even brokerage research reports use him as a reference case. At this point, it’s no longer about whether he’s popular or not. It’s about the fact that his commercial credibility has already turned into real, tangible value, real hard currency in financial terms. To sum it up, Xiao Zhan’s success is adult self-discipline beating empty youthful showmanship. He turned himself from just a name into a brand. So even if casual viewers feel that he appears less often, the moment he shows up, the gap is overwhelming, on a completely different tier. Finally, I want to ask everyone a very clear-headed question. In the entertainment industry, what do you think matters more: being constantly visible on variety shows, or being like Xiao Zhan, where every appearance comes with real substance? #XiaoZhan #肖战
3:34

A Drama Academy PhD Explains Why Xiao Zhan Stays Popular Long-Term 👤: If you ask who the real top star in the domestic entertainment industry is, the comment section would probably blow up. But among industry professionals, if any ranking dares to leave out the name Xiao Zhan, then that ranking might as well be thrown straight into the trash. So why do insiders see Xiao Zhan as a stabilizing force, while casual viewers feel he’s especially quiet and low-key. Behind this contrast is the underlying logic that explains how Xiao Zhan can stay popular beyond 2026 and stand out as a one-of-a-kind case. Today, let’s break it down from three psychological angles. First, his socialization path gives him a major advantage. When people look at Xiao Zhan, they shouldn’t just focus on his face, the one that’s topped global “most handsome” lists for six consecutive years. They need to look at his résumé. He debuted at 24. Before that, he graduated from a comprehensive university with a degree in design. He actually worked regular jobs, was a real office worker, started a business, stayed up late, revised drafts, and got worn down by demanding clients. This point is extremely important. Many actors have never worked regular jobs at all. So when they act in workplace dramas, it often feels fake. They’re basically just acting it out. They don’t really know what the real world looks like. But when Xiao Zhan plays Sheng Yang or Xiao Chunsheng, that sense of a real, living person isn’t something he acts. It’s something that’s already in him. In psychology, this is called complete socialization. And for an actor, this is extremely important. Even though I graduated from the Central Academy of Drama, I still think many students who come out of acting programs are lacking in this area. Xiao Zhan brings a designer’s mindset, a professional habit of solving problems, into the entertainment industry. That clarity, together with real workplace experience, is his strongest shield in a world driven by fame and profit. Second, traffic is temporary. Only works truly matter in the long run. Let’s be honest. For most people, the 227 incident would have been a career-ending blow. But for Xiao Zhan, it became a brutal reset of his career. Before that, he was a traffic star supported by fan campaigns. But that storm forced him to go through a psychological transformation early on. On a psychological level, he redefined himself. He clearly understood that traffic and popularity are superficial. Only works are real currency. So he threw himself into the theater, performed A Dream Like a Dream, and at the peak of his popularity, stepped onto the stage of live theater. He spent three years there, training and honing his craft. In psychology, this is called a higher level of desensitization. He stripped away his labels and deliberately put himself into an environment with no filters and no retakes, where he could go all in on his craft. And everyone saw the result. In 2025, The Legend of Zang Hai broke viewership records. During the 2026 New Year crossover period, its ratings share hit legendary status. All of this is the compounded return on those three years of investment. Third, this comes down to the capital side’s sense of psychological security. Here, I’ll have to share a bit of industry insider talk. A lot of people say that Xiao Zhan is “capital’s favorite son.” But honestly, you’re overcomplicating it. The logic of investors is very simple. I invest to make money. Artists who come with low risk and high returns are a guaranteed safe bet. Among top male stars in the domestic entertainment industry, there are only a few real options. Who stays away from messy relationships with female assistants? Who works hard on set, doesn’t cause trouble, cooperates well, and stays professional? In an era where scandals break out at any moment, a top star like Xiao Zhan, with no gossip, no variety shows, who spends his days on set, is basically a low-risk, high-return investment product in the capital market. Even brokerage research reports use him as a reference case. At this point, it’s no longer about whether he’s popular or not. It’s about the fact that his commercial credibility has already turned into real, tangible value, real hard currency in financial terms. To sum it up, Xiao Zhan’s success is adult self-discipline beating empty youthful showmanship. He turned himself from just a name into a brand. So even if casual viewers feel that he appears less often, the moment he shows up, the gap is overwhelming, on a completely different tier. Finally, I want to ask everyone a very clear-headed question. In the entertainment industry, what do you think matters more: being constantly visible on variety shows, or being like Xiao Zhan, where every appearance comes with real substance? #XiaoZhan #肖战

Xiao Zhan World ♥️ Adoki

59,015 views • 6 months ago

$IREN My Earnings Wishlist pt1 Since many have posted their wishlist before me, I will take a different approach, and will just write down anything that I think is likely to happen in the coming 6-12 months, which interests me, and hasn't been talked about yet, or not into much detail. Chapter 1: New Sites IREN has always said they have a >1 GW pipeline. Last year, Dan Roberts said: "And that can be any number above 1GW". More recent communication mentioned "Multi-GW Pipeline", which brings the bare minimum to 2GW, and that's on top of 2.91GW of disclosed, contracted power. Yesterday, Mike Alfred said that the current 200MW deal with $MSFT is a "tiny part" of their total portfolio. He has also made comments like "Just wait until you see the entire pipeline". Also yesterday, we heard Dan mention "Outside of Texas & Globally", for the locations of their other sites. Within my subscriber group, we keep track of the land that is being optioned and bought by $IREN. Amongst these sites, we try to assess which one is the most likely to be a candidate for a connection agreement, and subsequent energization approval. Currently, the interest has shifted outside of Texas, and I believe that's why more recently we have heard the "global" pipeline come back into the picture. This is also why Dan said "Outside of Texas and Globally". Now, I wasn't going to really talk about development sites. And I think your guess is as good as mine, if you would have the information that I have. So I will not be speculating on particular sites. But will give my realistic expectation for these earnings, or at the latest, somewhere in the coming 6-12 months. Because we know that the 2025-2027 window is the most valuable when it comes to Megawatts, and we have some information that indicates a choice will have to be made before the end of this year with regards to a specific new project — I think a general expectation is in order for the wishlist of the earnings of Thursday. Prediction: $IREN's first new project will either be in Asia-Pacific ("Globally"), or in Oklahoma ("Outside of Texas"). Now I promised not to speculate on particular sites, so I will mostly focus on explaining why I think Asia-Pacific is the most likely to be next. Thanks to one of my best $IREN informers, I was notified of a new job listing by a recruiter in Sydney that is specficially looking for commercial jobs. You may be aware of IREN's job listings on HiBob or LinkedIn, but despite there being 93 open positions listed there, it's still not all that they are looking to hire. But lo and behold: there is a new listing at their commercial recruit which mentions the following: Senior Manager, Corporate Development (AI Data centres - Sydney & Vancouver Our client is a global operator in the digital infrastructure sector, developing and managing high-performance computing (HPC) facilities powered by renewable energy. The business owns and operates large-scale data-centre campuses across North America, with active expansion into the Asia-Pacific region. By combining low-cost renewable power with advanced compute infrastructure, the company is helping accelerate the global energy transition and support the next generation of AI and HPC applications. Now it gets even more interesting when we read the job description: We are seeking two commercially focused professionals to lead M&A transactions from origination through execution. Sitting at the intersection of corporate development, project development, and investment execution, these roles will drive complex deals that underpin the company’s global expansion pipeline. End-to-end transaction management: Lead or co-lead M&A processes including initial engagement with counterparties, structuring, due diligence, negotiation of binding documentation, and execution. Financial and risk analysis: Build and review models to evaluate potential returns, sensitivities, and risk exposures across acquisition, partnership, and joint-venture structures. Now, you may remember I made a post last week about IREN's ARS: One interesting paragraph that I didn't talk about yet, was the M&A paragraph: Consider pursuing strategic acquisitions and other value enhancing opportunities We may strategically assess acquisition opportunities where we believe such transactions can accelerate our strategic roadmap through horizontal or vertical integration, expanding capacity, or gaining intellectual property that may help strengthen our competitive advantage. In addition, we may from time to time, seek to dispose of, or monetize, assets where we believe we can receive value from any such disposition, or monetization, that is accretive to the business. Now before I close this topic, and give my final words on the expectations I have for the announcement of a new site, I want to shortly address the McNallie Money interview with Patrick Fleury that was released yesterday. I think it's one thing to be proud of your own customers and partners by calling them "the best in the world", it's also fine if you think that everyone is imitating your "first ever financial engineering". But I think it's not very classy to throw shade on Texas data center companies, especially peers, that have a pipeline, and long standing relationships with T(D)SP's, and have a realistic line of sight to power. Just because there is 200GW of queued capacity, doesn't mean that seasoned operators like $CIFR and $IREN are making things up. I have evidence in my possession that demonstrates that the companies I am invested in that operate in Texas, have all the means and connections to get these new sites energized. But for the sake of this notion that "having all your sites in Texas is a concentration risk", I am happy to reiterate that $IREN has in fact got a pipeline that expands outside of Texas, and most likely will see an announcement in Asia Pacific, or Oklahoma, within the coming 6-12 months. So let's see if we get something tomorrow, or if it will just be some extra power coming to Childress or Canada. But almost 1 year after the announcement of Sweetwater 2 — I am confident that the time is near that we hear from a new site, potentially outside of Texas or globally.
0:42

$IREN My Earnings Wishlist pt1 Since many have posted their wishlist before me, I will take a different approach, and will just write down anything that I think is likely to happen in the coming 6-12 months, which interests me, and hasn't been talked about yet, or not into much detail. Chapter 1: New Sites IREN has always said they have a >1 GW pipeline. Last year, Dan Roberts said: "And that can be any number above 1GW". More recent communication mentioned "Multi-GW Pipeline", which brings the bare minimum to 2GW, and that's on top of 2.91GW of disclosed, contracted power. Yesterday, Mike Alfred said that the current 200MW deal with $MSFT is a "tiny part" of their total portfolio. He has also made comments like "Just wait until you see the entire pipeline". Also yesterday, we heard Dan mention "Outside of Texas & Globally", for the locations of their other sites. Within my subscriber group, we keep track of the land that is being optioned and bought by $IREN. Amongst these sites, we try to assess which one is the most likely to be a candidate for a connection agreement, and subsequent energization approval. Currently, the interest has shifted outside of Texas, and I believe that's why more recently we have heard the "global" pipeline come back into the picture. This is also why Dan said "Outside of Texas and Globally". Now, I wasn't going to really talk about development sites. And I think your guess is as good as mine, if you would have the information that I have. So I will not be speculating on particular sites. But will give my realistic expectation for these earnings, or at the latest, somewhere in the coming 6-12 months. Because we know that the 2025-2027 window is the most valuable when it comes to Megawatts, and we have some information that indicates a choice will have to be made before the end of this year with regards to a specific new project — I think a general expectation is in order for the wishlist of the earnings of Thursday. Prediction: $IREN's first new project will either be in Asia-Pacific ("Globally"), or in Oklahoma ("Outside of Texas"). Now I promised not to speculate on particular sites, so I will mostly focus on explaining why I think Asia-Pacific is the most likely to be next. Thanks to one of my best $IREN informers, I was notified of a new job listing by a recruiter in Sydney that is specficially looking for commercial jobs. You may be aware of IREN's job listings on HiBob or LinkedIn, but despite there being 93 open positions listed there, it's still not all that they are looking to hire. But lo and behold: there is a new listing at their commercial recruit which mentions the following: Senior Manager, Corporate Development (AI Data centres - Sydney & Vancouver Our client is a global operator in the digital infrastructure sector, developing and managing high-performance computing (HPC) facilities powered by renewable energy. The business owns and operates large-scale data-centre campuses across North America, with active expansion into the Asia-Pacific region. By combining low-cost renewable power with advanced compute infrastructure, the company is helping accelerate the global energy transition and support the next generation of AI and HPC applications. Now it gets even more interesting when we read the job description: We are seeking two commercially focused professionals to lead M&A transactions from origination through execution. Sitting at the intersection of corporate development, project development, and investment execution, these roles will drive complex deals that underpin the company’s global expansion pipeline. End-to-end transaction management: Lead or co-lead M&A processes including initial engagement with counterparties, structuring, due diligence, negotiation of binding documentation, and execution. Financial and risk analysis: Build and review models to evaluate potential returns, sensitivities, and risk exposures across acquisition, partnership, and joint-venture structures. Now, you may remember I made a post last week about IREN's ARS: One interesting paragraph that I didn't talk about yet, was the M&A paragraph: Consider pursuing strategic acquisitions and other value enhancing opportunities We may strategically assess acquisition opportunities where we believe such transactions can accelerate our strategic roadmap through horizontal or vertical integration, expanding capacity, or gaining intellectual property that may help strengthen our competitive advantage. In addition, we may from time to time, seek to dispose of, or monetize, assets where we believe we can receive value from any such disposition, or monetization, that is accretive to the business. Now before I close this topic, and give my final words on the expectations I have for the announcement of a new site, I want to shortly address the McNallie Money interview with Patrick Fleury that was released yesterday. I think it's one thing to be proud of your own customers and partners by calling them "the best in the world", it's also fine if you think that everyone is imitating your "first ever financial engineering". But I think it's not very classy to throw shade on Texas data center companies, especially peers, that have a pipeline, and long standing relationships with T(D)SP's, and have a realistic line of sight to power. Just because there is 200GW of queued capacity, doesn't mean that seasoned operators like $CIFR and $IREN are making things up. I have evidence in my possession that demonstrates that the companies I am invested in that operate in Texas, have all the means and connections to get these new sites energized. But for the sake of this notion that "having all your sites in Texas is a concentration risk", I am happy to reiterate that $IREN has in fact got a pipeline that expands outside of Texas, and most likely will see an announcement in Asia Pacific, or Oklahoma, within the coming 6-12 months. So let's see if we get something tomorrow, or if it will just be some extra power coming to Childress or Canada. But almost 1 year after the announcement of Sweetwater 2 — I am confident that the time is near that we hear from a new site, potentially outside of Texas or globally.

Frans Bakker

142,574 views • 9 months ago

In 1998, Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger spent 4 hours explaining why the smartest people in finance keep going broke. It might be the most valuable finance lecture ever recorded: 1. The smartest people in finance went completely broke. Long-term Capital Management had 16 people with possibly the highest average IQ of any firm in the country, 350 to 400 combined years of experience, and most of their own net worth in the fund. They still went bankrupt. Buffett said if he ever wrote a book it would be called why smart people do dumb things. 2. Life and markets have no relation to sigmas. Buffett keeps a 1901 newspaper on his office wall. Northern Pacific went from $170 to $1,000 a share in a single day when two buyers accidentally cornered the stock. A brewer who had shorted it, facing a margin call, dove into a vat of hot beer. That man probably understood sigmas and knew such a move was impossible. Buffett has never wanted to end up in the vat. 3. Beta and sigmas tell you nothing about the risk of going broke. the LTCM team relied on mathematics and believed a six- or seven-sigma event could not touch them. they were wrong. history does not tell you the probabilities of future financial events. the real risk is a permanent blind spot in something crucial, often caused by knowing a great deal about something else. 4. To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Munger's explanation for why brilliant people do dumb things. They learn a set of mathematical techniques and then twist every problem to fit the solution they already know. Combine that with a poor grasp of history, and you get people with advanced degrees blowing themselves up. 5. To make money they did not need, they risked money they did need. That is just plain foolish, Buffett says, no matter your IQ. Hand him a gun with a million chambers and one bullet, offer any sum to put it to his temple and pull once, and he will not do it. there is nothing on the upside that justifies the downside. people do this financially all the time without thinking. 6. The major banks all had risk models and had no idea what they owned. they met weekly at risk committees, printed all the statistics in neat columns, and did not have the faintest idea what risk they were carrying. The rare and essential quality is someone who can contemplate perils that have not popped up yet, the ones no past model contains. 7. A chief risk officer often just makes you feel good while you do dumb things. munger compares him to the Delphic oracle who convinced the Persian king to attack. he has a PhD and does advanced math, but he tortures reality to defend a model that does not hold under extreme conditions. all that computation makes you feel like you clobbered the risk when you have only clobbered your own head. 8. The whole quant risk system just changed the shape of the curve and kept going. Munger notes the business schools "improved" by throwing away the Gaussian curve and drawing a different one. They talk about fat tails now, but they still have no idea how fat to make them. he and Buffett always knew the tails were there, and used to roll their eyes at the risk-control people at Salomon. 9. Never risk what you have and need for what you do not have and do not need. Buffett will not explain to his family, who hold most of their net worth in Berkshire, that they went broke on a 100-to-1 gamble. Their returns get penalized 99 years out of 100 by being too conservative, and in the hundredth year they survive when others do not. 10. Build the business so that if the world stops working tomorrow, you have no problem. Berkshire double-layers its protection. First, they behave so no rational person questions their credit, then they hold so much liquidity that if the world suddenly hated their credit, they would not notice for months. It gives up higher returns 99% of the time and survives the one time others do not. 11. The real danger is a risk that has never happened before. Buffett wants someone who can imagine perils that have not yet appeared, the ones no model contains. The major institutions all had models, and that inability to envision the unprecedented is exactly what proved fatal. He and Munger spend a lot of time thinking about things that could hit them out of the blue that others leave out entirely. 12. Investing is simple, but not easy. The framework is not complicated. you did not need a high IQ to buy junk bonds in 2002 or stocks at low multiples in 1974. you just needed the courage of your convictions and the willingness to act when everyone else was paralyzed. Following logic rather than emotion is obvious, and yet some people find it almost impossible. 13. You cannot get rich with a weathervane. Buffett and Munger pay no attention to predictions about the economy or the market. People love predictions, entire industries are built on them, but it is like the king hiring a forecaster to read sheep guts. They have never made or avoided a single business purchase because of a macro view. 14. Name one super-wealthy economist. Munger's challenge. All these economists with 160 IQs spend their lives studying markets, and you cannot find one who got rich buying securities. Even Keynes tried to predict the credit cycle, broke a couple of times, and only did well once he switched to buying good businesses cheap and concentrating. 15. Focus only on what is important and knowable. Some things are important but unknowable, like whether someone drops a nuclear weapon tomorrow. Some things are knowable but unimportant. You narrow your attention to the small set of things that are both important and knowable, and you ignore everything else. 16. The market is there to serve you, not to instruct you. This is Graham's chapter eight, and Buffett calls it enormously important. When people talk about momentum or charts, they are saying the market instructs you. It does not. It just quotes prices. When it does something silly, you get a chance to act. Otherwise you go play bridge and check again tomorrow. 17. You can make a decision in five minutes or not at all. Buffett and Munger act fast because they rule out enormous territory in advance. Munger blots out startups entirely, and half a dozen other filters, so what remains is small enough to judge instantly. If they cannot decide in five minutes, they will not learn enough in five months to make up for going in deficient. 18. You can make a lot of money on a Sunday. Buffett said the calls you get on a Sunday, when things are truly screwed up, are the ones you make money on. All you have to do is be the collie and not the caller. You never get in a position where the other party can call your tune, so you can always play out your hand. 19. You are not right because others agree with you. Ben Graham said you are neither right nor wrong because the crowd disagrees. You are right because your facts and reasoning are right. Being contrarian has no special virtue over being a trend follower. All that matters is whether the facts are correct and the logic is sound. 20. Know where the edge of your circle of competence is. Buffett says the size of your circle does not matter. Knowing its perimeter does. You do not have to understand 90% of businesses. You just have to know something real about the few you actually put money into, and honestly recognize the ones you do not understand and walk away. 21. Intrinsic value is just the cash a business will produce, discounted back. Buffett thinks of every business as a bond with coupons that are not printed on it. Your job as an investor is to estimate those future coupons. If you cannot estimate them, like in a high-tech company, you pass. Investing is putting out money to get more back from what the asset produces, not from selling it to someone else. 22. The best businesses earn a royalty and need little capital. Coca-Cola sells a formula and takes a cut of every drink. Magazines like People operate on negative capital because subscribers pay in advance. The great businesses are the ones that can grow very large while needing almost no capital, which is why consumer businesses with pricing power are so valuable. 23. You only have to find one good idea, not twenty. Munger said you cannot find twenty deeply mispriced things, and Buffett agreed you do not need to. You do not have to have tons of good ideas in this business. You just need one good idea that is worth a ton, occasionally. For small sums, Buffett said he would have been 100% in Korea a few years earlier, where great companies traded at three times earnings. 24. The trick is measuring everything against your best opportunity. Munger calls this opportunity cost, the doctrine from the first page of the economics textbook that modern portfolio theory somehow ignored. Once you have found the best thing you understand, you measure every other option against it. The higher your default option, the more you can reject. 25. Modern portfolio theory is, in Munger's words, asinine. Most people will not find thousands of equally good things. They will find a few where one or two are far better than anything else they know. The right way to invest is to concentrate on your best opportunity cost, not to diversify into mediocrity because a model told you to. 26. Big opportunities must be seized, and seized big. Buffett says imagine you got a punch card with only twenty punches for your whole life, one per financial decision. You would think hard about each one, make fewer and better bets, and probably never use all twenty. The discipline of scarcity would make you rich. Dabbling in a bull market because it is easy is how people lose. 27. America has always been full of reasons to sell, and wrong every time. Coca-Cola went public in 1919 at $40, dropped to $19 within a year, and then faced the great depression, World War, and atomic bombs. One share reinvested is worth millions now. The country's opportunities have always won out over its problems. It is investors, not the economy, who tend to be their own worst enemy.
3:59:34

In 1998, Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger spent 4 hours explaining why the smartest people in finance keep going broke. It might be the most valuable finance lecture ever recorded: 1. The smartest people in finance went completely broke. Long-term Capital Management had 16 people with possibly the highest average IQ of any firm in the country, 350 to 400 combined years of experience, and most of their own net worth in the fund. They still went bankrupt. Buffett said if he ever wrote a book it would be called why smart people do dumb things. 2. Life and markets have no relation to sigmas. Buffett keeps a 1901 newspaper on his office wall. Northern Pacific went from $170 to $1,000 a share in a single day when two buyers accidentally cornered the stock. A brewer who had shorted it, facing a margin call, dove into a vat of hot beer. That man probably understood sigmas and knew such a move was impossible. Buffett has never wanted to end up in the vat. 3. Beta and sigmas tell you nothing about the risk of going broke. the LTCM team relied on mathematics and believed a six- or seven-sigma event could not touch them. they were wrong. history does not tell you the probabilities of future financial events. the real risk is a permanent blind spot in something crucial, often caused by knowing a great deal about something else. 4. To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Munger's explanation for why brilliant people do dumb things. They learn a set of mathematical techniques and then twist every problem to fit the solution they already know. Combine that with a poor grasp of history, and you get people with advanced degrees blowing themselves up. 5. To make money they did not need, they risked money they did need. That is just plain foolish, Buffett says, no matter your IQ. Hand him a gun with a million chambers and one bullet, offer any sum to put it to his temple and pull once, and he will not do it. there is nothing on the upside that justifies the downside. people do this financially all the time without thinking. 6. The major banks all had risk models and had no idea what they owned. they met weekly at risk committees, printed all the statistics in neat columns, and did not have the faintest idea what risk they were carrying. The rare and essential quality is someone who can contemplate perils that have not popped up yet, the ones no past model contains. 7. A chief risk officer often just makes you feel good while you do dumb things. munger compares him to the Delphic oracle who convinced the Persian king to attack. he has a PhD and does advanced math, but he tortures reality to defend a model that does not hold under extreme conditions. all that computation makes you feel like you clobbered the risk when you have only clobbered your own head. 8. The whole quant risk system just changed the shape of the curve and kept going. Munger notes the business schools "improved" by throwing away the Gaussian curve and drawing a different one. They talk about fat tails now, but they still have no idea how fat to make them. he and Buffett always knew the tails were there, and used to roll their eyes at the risk-control people at Salomon. 9. Never risk what you have and need for what you do not have and do not need. Buffett will not explain to his family, who hold most of their net worth in Berkshire, that they went broke on a 100-to-1 gamble. Their returns get penalized 99 years out of 100 by being too conservative, and in the hundredth year they survive when others do not. 10. Build the business so that if the world stops working tomorrow, you have no problem. Berkshire double-layers its protection. First, they behave so no rational person questions their credit, then they hold so much liquidity that if the world suddenly hated their credit, they would not notice for months. It gives up higher returns 99% of the time and survives the one time others do not. 11. The real danger is a risk that has never happened before. Buffett wants someone who can imagine perils that have not yet appeared, the ones no model contains. The major institutions all had models, and that inability to envision the unprecedented is exactly what proved fatal. He and Munger spend a lot of time thinking about things that could hit them out of the blue that others leave out entirely. 12. Investing is simple, but not easy. The framework is not complicated. you did not need a high IQ to buy junk bonds in 2002 or stocks at low multiples in 1974. you just needed the courage of your convictions and the willingness to act when everyone else was paralyzed. Following logic rather than emotion is obvious, and yet some people find it almost impossible. 13. You cannot get rich with a weathervane. Buffett and Munger pay no attention to predictions about the economy or the market. People love predictions, entire industries are built on them, but it is like the king hiring a forecaster to read sheep guts. They have never made or avoided a single business purchase because of a macro view. 14. Name one super-wealthy economist. Munger's challenge. All these economists with 160 IQs spend their lives studying markets, and you cannot find one who got rich buying securities. Even Keynes tried to predict the credit cycle, broke a couple of times, and only did well once he switched to buying good businesses cheap and concentrating. 15. Focus only on what is important and knowable. Some things are important but unknowable, like whether someone drops a nuclear weapon tomorrow. Some things are knowable but unimportant. You narrow your attention to the small set of things that are both important and knowable, and you ignore everything else. 16. The market is there to serve you, not to instruct you. This is Graham's chapter eight, and Buffett calls it enormously important. When people talk about momentum or charts, they are saying the market instructs you. It does not. It just quotes prices. When it does something silly, you get a chance to act. Otherwise you go play bridge and check again tomorrow. 17. You can make a decision in five minutes or not at all. Buffett and Munger act fast because they rule out enormous territory in advance. Munger blots out startups entirely, and half a dozen other filters, so what remains is small enough to judge instantly. If they cannot decide in five minutes, they will not learn enough in five months to make up for going in deficient. 18. You can make a lot of money on a Sunday. Buffett said the calls you get on a Sunday, when things are truly screwed up, are the ones you make money on. All you have to do is be the collie and not the caller. You never get in a position where the other party can call your tune, so you can always play out your hand. 19. You are not right because others agree with you. Ben Graham said you are neither right nor wrong because the crowd disagrees. You are right because your facts and reasoning are right. Being contrarian has no special virtue over being a trend follower. All that matters is whether the facts are correct and the logic is sound. 20. Know where the edge of your circle of competence is. Buffett says the size of your circle does not matter. Knowing its perimeter does. You do not have to understand 90% of businesses. You just have to know something real about the few you actually put money into, and honestly recognize the ones you do not understand and walk away. 21. Intrinsic value is just the cash a business will produce, discounted back. Buffett thinks of every business as a bond with coupons that are not printed on it. Your job as an investor is to estimate those future coupons. If you cannot estimate them, like in a high-tech company, you pass. Investing is putting out money to get more back from what the asset produces, not from selling it to someone else. 22. The best businesses earn a royalty and need little capital. Coca-Cola sells a formula and takes a cut of every drink. Magazines like People operate on negative capital because subscribers pay in advance. The great businesses are the ones that can grow very large while needing almost no capital, which is why consumer businesses with pricing power are so valuable. 23. You only have to find one good idea, not twenty. Munger said you cannot find twenty deeply mispriced things, and Buffett agreed you do not need to. You do not have to have tons of good ideas in this business. You just need one good idea that is worth a ton, occasionally. For small sums, Buffett said he would have been 100% in Korea a few years earlier, where great companies traded at three times earnings. 24. The trick is measuring everything against your best opportunity. Munger calls this opportunity cost, the doctrine from the first page of the economics textbook that modern portfolio theory somehow ignored. Once you have found the best thing you understand, you measure every other option against it. The higher your default option, the more you can reject. 25. Modern portfolio theory is, in Munger's words, asinine. Most people will not find thousands of equally good things. They will find a few where one or two are far better than anything else they know. The right way to invest is to concentrate on your best opportunity cost, not to diversify into mediocrity because a model told you to. 26. Big opportunities must be seized, and seized big. Buffett says imagine you got a punch card with only twenty punches for your whole life, one per financial decision. You would think hard about each one, make fewer and better bets, and probably never use all twenty. The discipline of scarcity would make you rich. Dabbling in a bull market because it is easy is how people lose. 27. America has always been full of reasons to sell, and wrong every time. Coca-Cola went public in 1919 at $40, dropped to $19 within a year, and then faced the great depression, World War, and atomic bombs. One share reinvested is worth millions now. The country's opportunities have always won out over its problems. It is investors, not the economy, who tend to be their own worst enemy.

Jaynit

103,423 views • 1 month ago

Brendan Eich - Co-Founder and CEO of Brave -University of Illinois Urbana-Campaign This University houses the National Center for Supercomputing Applications which has also employed Marc Andreessen. It was established via The "Black Proposal" in partnership with the National Science Foundation (inspired by the Rockefeller Foundation). -MicroUnity Founded by John Moussouris with funding from William Randolph Hearst III via Kleiner Perkins. In the early 1990s, MicroUnity was backed by over $100 million from companies like Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, Motorola, and telecommunications leaders like Time Warner and John Malone at Tele-Communications Inc. MicroUnity developed its first designs in BiCMOS at a time when Intel Pentium Pro and SUN Microsystems SPARC were designed in BiCMOS. -Mosaic/Netscape It was here he worked with Marc Andreessen, Eric Bina, James Clark. While working at Netscape, Brendan Eich created JavaScript with the "approval" of Bill Joy from SUN Microsystems, according to an interview Brendan Eich did with InfoWorld. ( At first the language was called Mocha, but it was renamed LiveScript in September 1995 and finally, in a joint announcement with SUN Microsystems, it was named JavaScript in December. --SUN Microsystems Short for "Stanford University Network Microsystems", this company would eventually go on to be absorbed by Larry Ellisons Oracle, whose first client was the CIA through In-Q-Tel. Brendan never worked directly for SUN Microsystems, but the release of JavaScript was a joint venture with Netscape. -Mozilla Foundation In early 1998, Eich co-founded the free and open-source software project Mozilla with Jamie Zawinski and others, where he served as Mozilla's Chief Architect. AOL bought Netscape in 1999. After AOL shut down the Netscape browser unit in July 2003, Eich helped spin out the Mozilla Foundation. The Mozilla Foundation would include Joichu Ito, former head of the MIT Media Lab, who was forced to resign due to his business dealings with Jeffery Epstein. Mozilla would also include MIT Media Labs Reid Hoffman, who also had a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Hoffman was an early investor in OpenAI and Facebook (he even introduced Mark Zuckerberg and Peter Thiel). Hoffman attended Stanford University (same as Thiel), is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, The Bilderberg Group, and The Defense Innovation Board. Hoffman joined Apple Computer in 1994, was a member of PayPal's Board of Directors at the time it was founded, founder of LinkedIn (in which Thiel has invested). Hoffman also co-founded Endeavor Global with Linda Rottenberg (fellow CFR Member) who is part of the World Economic Forum. Endeavor Global is partnered with both the WEF and Klaus Schwabs "The Schwab Foundation". Hoffman serves on the Board of Bill Gates Microsoft, and also donates to Bill Gates Foundation "The Giving Pledge". -Palantir According to CrunchBase, Brendan Eich is an Advisor at Peter Thiel's Palantir. Palantir is obviously involved in too much to name here for now, but should be noted that Peter Thiel had previous business relationships with both Jeffrey Epstein and former PM of Israel Ehud Barak, and Thiel also provides Israel assistance in it's Genocide of Gaza and Global Surveillance Programs. Peter Thiel is also a member of the Bilderberg Group alongside Hoffman, as well as Palantirs CEO Alex Karp. Karp and Thiel also partner with the WEF. -Box Box is an online file sharing and cloud content management service offering unlimited storage, custom branding, and administrative controls. Brendan is also listed as a member of their Advisory Board. Box received funding from both General Atlantic, and KKR & Co. KKR & Co. is co-headed by Ken Mehlman, who was a member of the Bush Administration, is a member of Mark Zuckerbergs Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative, also sits on the Council on Foreign Relations, he was 62nd Chairman of the Republican National Committee from 2005 to 2007. In 2007, Bush appointed Mehlman to a five-year term on the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council. He also participated in anti-Proposition 8 Fundraising alongside Peter Thiel. Mehlman also serves as chairman of the American Investment Council, and is co-Chairman of the American Enterprise Institute's National Council. --American Enterprise Institute is tied to Purdue Pharma, and was the primary outlet for Sally Satel to run PR on behalf of Purdue to help cover up the Opioid Crisis. It was here that she wrote stories that attempted to steer the narrative on the Opioid Crisis, often blaming victims for their addictions, recommending increasing doses regularly, and even attempted to have the age of prescription for OxyContin lowered to 11 years old. (JD Vance has also worked with AEI in the past, and specifically selected Sally Satel to head his anti-Opioid Campaign, "Our Ohio Renewal". This took place after the Sackler Family and Purdue had been criminally charged for their role in the Opioid Crisis and are receiving a $7.4 billion dollar settlement, in which Purdue had plead guilty in 2007 for.) -Brave Software Responsible for the Brave Web Browser, Brave Software received seed funding from Peter Thiel's VC Firm Founders Fund, as well as Dan Moreheads Pantera Capital (Pantera Capital has also contributed to Paradigm Operations LP, alongside funding from Sam Bankman-Frieds Alameda Research, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Marc Andreessen. Paradigm was founded by Coinbase co-founder Fred Ehrsam and Sequoia Capital Partner Matt Huang.) -Netscape & Excite Marc Andreessen and Brendan Eich have worked together at Mosaic/Netscape, but Netscape also partnered with another company called Excite. Excite originally started as Architext in June 1993 in Cupertino, California, created by Graham Spencer, Joe Kraus, Mark VanHaren, Ryan McIntyre, Ben Lutch and Martin Reinfried, who were all students at Stanford University. In January 1995, Vinod Khosla, a former Stanford student and partner at venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, arranged a US $250,000 "first round" backing for the project, with US $1.5 million provided over a ten month period. Excite also received funding from Intuit, the company that owns TurboTax and Credit Karma, which was started by Tom Proulx and Scott Cook of Stanford. Eventually John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins joined them, along with funding from Kleiner Perkins. John Doerr is also a Stanford Alumni, whose namesake is on the "Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability". John Doerr is also part of the Presidents Countil on Jobs and Competitiveness. In January 1996, George Bell joined Excite as its CEO. George Bell works with General Catalyst Partners, and is a member of the Trust for Public Land, which is responsible for projects like the "Virgin Islands National Park Expansion". (Jeffrey Epsteins "Little Saint James Island" was infamously located in the Virgin Islands.) Excite also purchased a search engine called "Magellan", which was founded by Isabel Maxwell, the daughter of Robert Maxwell, and sister of Ghislane Maxwell. Joe Kraus from Excite would go on to work with Google, investing in various projects both personally and through his time at Google Ventures Management Company LLC. He's invested in companies like Uber, CoinBase (Co-Founded by Brian Armstrong from IBM and Member of Bill Gates, "The Giving Pledge" and Fred Ehrsam from Goldman Sachs), Nest, 23AndMe, (Anne Wojicki, who attended Jeffrey Epsteins "The Edge" Conference with her future husband and Google Co-Founder Sergey Brin, as well as Larry Page, Googles other Co-Founder, and whose sister Susan Wojiciki resided over YouTube for years for claiming that Google started in her garage), and a company called CrowdStrike (yes that one). Joe Kraus also invested in "The Climate Corporation" which belongs to Monsanto. Charles Allen Thomas of MIT, Transylvania University, and the National Research Committee (mostly MIT) was pivotal in Monsanto's "success".
3:58

Brendan Eich - Co-Founder and CEO of Brave -University of Illinois Urbana-Campaign This University houses the National Center for Supercomputing Applications which has also employed Marc Andreessen. It was established via The "Black Proposal" in partnership with the National Science Foundation (inspired by the Rockefeller Foundation). -MicroUnity Founded by John Moussouris with funding from William Randolph Hearst III via Kleiner Perkins. In the early 1990s, MicroUnity was backed by over $100 million from companies like Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, Motorola, and telecommunications leaders like Time Warner and John Malone at Tele-Communications Inc. MicroUnity developed its first designs in BiCMOS at a time when Intel Pentium Pro and SUN Microsystems SPARC were designed in BiCMOS. -Mosaic/Netscape It was here he worked with Marc Andreessen, Eric Bina, James Clark. While working at Netscape, Brendan Eich created JavaScript with the "approval" of Bill Joy from SUN Microsystems, according to an interview Brendan Eich did with InfoWorld. ( At first the language was called Mocha, but it was renamed LiveScript in September 1995 and finally, in a joint announcement with SUN Microsystems, it was named JavaScript in December. --SUN Microsystems Short for "Stanford University Network Microsystems", this company would eventually go on to be absorbed by Larry Ellisons Oracle, whose first client was the CIA through In-Q-Tel. Brendan never worked directly for SUN Microsystems, but the release of JavaScript was a joint venture with Netscape. -Mozilla Foundation In early 1998, Eich co-founded the free and open-source software project Mozilla with Jamie Zawinski and others, where he served as Mozilla's Chief Architect. AOL bought Netscape in 1999. After AOL shut down the Netscape browser unit in July 2003, Eich helped spin out the Mozilla Foundation. The Mozilla Foundation would include Joichu Ito, former head of the MIT Media Lab, who was forced to resign due to his business dealings with Jeffery Epstein. Mozilla would also include MIT Media Labs Reid Hoffman, who also had a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Hoffman was an early investor in OpenAI and Facebook (he even introduced Mark Zuckerberg and Peter Thiel). Hoffman attended Stanford University (same as Thiel), is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, The Bilderberg Group, and The Defense Innovation Board. Hoffman joined Apple Computer in 1994, was a member of PayPal's Board of Directors at the time it was founded, founder of LinkedIn (in which Thiel has invested). Hoffman also co-founded Endeavor Global with Linda Rottenberg (fellow CFR Member) who is part of the World Economic Forum. Endeavor Global is partnered with both the WEF and Klaus Schwabs "The Schwab Foundation". Hoffman serves on the Board of Bill Gates Microsoft, and also donates to Bill Gates Foundation "The Giving Pledge". -Palantir According to CrunchBase, Brendan Eich is an Advisor at Peter Thiel's Palantir. Palantir is obviously involved in too much to name here for now, but should be noted that Peter Thiel had previous business relationships with both Jeffrey Epstein and former PM of Israel Ehud Barak, and Thiel also provides Israel assistance in it's Genocide of Gaza and Global Surveillance Programs. Peter Thiel is also a member of the Bilderberg Group alongside Hoffman, as well as Palantirs CEO Alex Karp. Karp and Thiel also partner with the WEF. -Box Box is an online file sharing and cloud content management service offering unlimited storage, custom branding, and administrative controls. Brendan is also listed as a member of their Advisory Board. Box received funding from both General Atlantic, and KKR & Co. KKR & Co. is co-headed by Ken Mehlman, who was a member of the Bush Administration, is a member of Mark Zuckerbergs Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative, also sits on the Council on Foreign Relations, he was 62nd Chairman of the Republican National Committee from 2005 to 2007. In 2007, Bush appointed Mehlman to a five-year term on the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council. He also participated in anti-Proposition 8 Fundraising alongside Peter Thiel. Mehlman also serves as chairman of the American Investment Council, and is co-Chairman of the American Enterprise Institute's National Council. --American Enterprise Institute is tied to Purdue Pharma, and was the primary outlet for Sally Satel to run PR on behalf of Purdue to help cover up the Opioid Crisis. It was here that she wrote stories that attempted to steer the narrative on the Opioid Crisis, often blaming victims for their addictions, recommending increasing doses regularly, and even attempted to have the age of prescription for OxyContin lowered to 11 years old. (JD Vance has also worked with AEI in the past, and specifically selected Sally Satel to head his anti-Opioid Campaign, "Our Ohio Renewal". This took place after the Sackler Family and Purdue had been criminally charged for their role in the Opioid Crisis and are receiving a $7.4 billion dollar settlement, in which Purdue had plead guilty in 2007 for.) -Brave Software Responsible for the Brave Web Browser, Brave Software received seed funding from Peter Thiel's VC Firm Founders Fund, as well as Dan Moreheads Pantera Capital (Pantera Capital has also contributed to Paradigm Operations LP, alongside funding from Sam Bankman-Frieds Alameda Research, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and Marc Andreessen. Paradigm was founded by Coinbase co-founder Fred Ehrsam and Sequoia Capital Partner Matt Huang.) -Netscape & Excite Marc Andreessen and Brendan Eich have worked together at Mosaic/Netscape, but Netscape also partnered with another company called Excite. Excite originally started as Architext in June 1993 in Cupertino, California, created by Graham Spencer, Joe Kraus, Mark VanHaren, Ryan McIntyre, Ben Lutch and Martin Reinfried, who were all students at Stanford University. In January 1995, Vinod Khosla, a former Stanford student and partner at venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, arranged a US $250,000 "first round" backing for the project, with US $1.5 million provided over a ten month period. Excite also received funding from Intuit, the company that owns TurboTax and Credit Karma, which was started by Tom Proulx and Scott Cook of Stanford. Eventually John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins joined them, along with funding from Kleiner Perkins. John Doerr is also a Stanford Alumni, whose namesake is on the "Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability". John Doerr is also part of the Presidents Countil on Jobs and Competitiveness. In January 1996, George Bell joined Excite as its CEO. George Bell works with General Catalyst Partners, and is a member of the Trust for Public Land, which is responsible for projects like the "Virgin Islands National Park Expansion". (Jeffrey Epsteins "Little Saint James Island" was infamously located in the Virgin Islands.) Excite also purchased a search engine called "Magellan", which was founded by Isabel Maxwell, the daughter of Robert Maxwell, and sister of Ghislane Maxwell. Joe Kraus from Excite would go on to work with Google, investing in various projects both personally and through his time at Google Ventures Management Company LLC. He's invested in companies like Uber, CoinBase (Co-Founded by Brian Armstrong from IBM and Member of Bill Gates, "The Giving Pledge" and Fred Ehrsam from Goldman Sachs), Nest, 23AndMe, (Anne Wojicki, who attended Jeffrey Epsteins "The Edge" Conference with her future husband and Google Co-Founder Sergey Brin, as well as Larry Page, Googles other Co-Founder, and whose sister Susan Wojiciki resided over YouTube for years for claiming that Google started in her garage), and a company called CrowdStrike (yes that one). Joe Kraus also invested in "The Climate Corporation" which belongs to Monsanto. Charles Allen Thomas of MIT, Transylvania University, and the National Research Committee (mostly MIT) was pivotal in Monsanto's "success".

7SEES

21,457 views • 1 year ago

Making Sense Of Strategy What is happening with $MSTR? If you’ve been following me on X for any meaningful length of time, you will know that I have been attempting to calibrate people’s expectations of the stock's performance for the best part of 2025. Here I have synthesised all of my thoughts and distilled them into a single video. If you prefer YouTube, you can watch it here: If you prefer written format, continue reading. The first thing we need to understand is what Strategy is and why people invest in it. Strategy At the highest level, Strategy is leveraged Bitcoin. That’s it. Strategy leverages debt to acquire more Bitcoin. Therefore, the main reason you invest in Strategy is because you want to outperform Bitcoin. The only thing better than Bitcoin is more Bitcoin. The second thing we need to understand is mNAV. mNAV Generally speaking for a pure-play Bitcoin Treasury Company like Strategy, mNAV is a reflection of the market's expectation of future Bitcoin Yield. Bitcoin Yield comes with diminishing returns because each additional Bitcoin purchase contributes less to Bitcoin Per Share. Thus, the larger your Bitcoin stack, the harder it becomes to generate Bitcoin Yield and by extension the harder it becomes to outperform Bitcoin. This is why on a Bitcoin Standard, over a long enough time horizon, mNAV trends towards 1 since the maximum amount of Bitcoin you can own is 21M. With all this in mind, why is Strategy trading where it is and why is it trading at such a low mNAV? There are a few reasons. 1. Strategy Is A Different Company In 2025 Firstly, Strategy is a totally different company in 2025 to the one it was in 2020. For context, believe it or not, the company only introduced Bitcoin Yield and Bitcoin Per Share in the July 2024 Q2 Earnings Call and so it was only after that that they began optimising for those metrics. In my view, that is also when Michael Saylor truly started to understand the opportunity that was in front of him, which is why in October 2024 we saw Strategy announce the 21/21 plan which became the catalyst for the parabolic run we saw in November 2024 where $MSTR went on to briefly hit an all-time-high of around $550. Since people are comparing $MSTR this cycle to the $MSTR of last cycle when it briefly traded at an mNAV of over 8x, it is distorting their expectations. Again, Strategy is a totally different company today with a totally different set of dynamics. 2. New Industry Secondly, we need to recognise that the Bitcoin Treasury Company industry is entirely new which means that the market has been forced to learn and adapt in real-time. With Strategy being the first and by far the largest Bitcoin Treasury Company, it has gained a disproportionate amount of attention and as a result it has attracted a disproportionate amount of speculative capital along the way while everyone has been trying to figure out how to value it. Consequently, in my view, the move we saw in November 2024 was an over-correction to the upside — which by the way coincided with Bitcoin’s parabolic run following Donald Trump’s election win — and what we’re now seeing is an over-correction to the downside. 3. Bitcoin Yield Thirdly, as I mentioned at the beginning, Bitcoin Treasury Companies are currently valued based on how much Bitcoin Yield they are expected to generate in the future. At the time of recording, Strategy currently holds precisely 637,460 Bitcoin — that’s over 3% of the total Bitcoin supply — which means that it is much, much harder to generate meaningful Bitcoin Yield, which again is why we’re seeing the mNAV compress. However, there is a caveat here. There is another metric that Strategy have introduced which is Bitcoin $ Gain. Bitcoin $ Gain is defined as the $ value of newly acquired Bitcoin within any period. Strategy — and I don’t blame them — have been attempting to encourage the market to interpret Bitcoin $ Gain as “earnings” and to value the company based on how much earnings it is expected to generate in the future. For full disclosure, I personally dislike Bitcoin $ Gain as a valuation metric. I think framing it as “earnings” is misleading and disingenuous. I understand why it has been introduced because it speaks the language of Wall Street. However, traditional earnings are final. Bitcoin $ Gain is not because it is forever subject to the price of Bitcoin. Therefore, for Bitcoin $ Gain to be embraced by Wall Street, the market must collectively agree that Bitcoin is going up forever. I remain very sceptical of that happening — especially in the short-to-medium term. However, I am also not attached to my beliefs and so if Wall Street does decide to embrace Bitcoin $ Gain as its primary valuation metric, then $MSTR is likely undervalued by a factor of 5-10x. If not, then $MSTR is likely undervalued by a factor of 1-2x. If you’re not content with the latter being the worst case scenario, then the stock probably isn’t for you. 4. Preferred Products Fourthly, the Strategy thesis right now revolves entirely around the success of its preferred products. Remember, Michael Saylor wants Strategy to become the Amazon of the fixed income market. Thus, we’re not talking about a small innovation here — we are talking about completely transforming global finance. This means that the process of generating awareness and educating the market that will ultimately drive demand for these products is going to take years — not months — which is why you need to have a long time-horizon. Presently, the market is completely discounting the success of Strategy’s preferred products. What it’s not factoring in however is that the capital markets are desperate for yield right now. Thus, when — not if — but when, they eventually wake up to Bitcoin, how do you think they’re going to get that yield? Who is going to be the entity that is offering Bitcoin-backed credit instruments at scale? The answer is obviously Strategy, but again, this is a 5-to-10 year and beyond story. So with all that said, if you’re reading this right now, what should you do? Valuing Strategy There are 3 steps you need to take: 1. Firstly, you need to define your time horizon. In other words, how long do you intend on holding the stock for? 2. Secondly, you need to estimate either — depending on your preferred metric — how much Bitcoin Yield or how much Bitcoin $ Gain you expect Strategy to generate during that period and then calculate how much you expect $MSTR to outperform Bitcoin based on those values. 3. Thirdly, ask yourself whether you’d be satisfied with the level of outperformance you have calculated? In other words, is the trade-off worth it? Or would you be better off investing in either spot Bitcoin, an alternative Bitcoin Treasury Company or a Bitcoin ETF. If you’re satisfied with the level of outperformance that you’ve calculated, then $MSTR it probably a good choice of investment for you. If you're not satisfied, then $MSTR is probably a bad choice of investment for you. I personally believe that $MSTR will outperform Bitcoin by a minimum factor of 1-2x over the next 5/10 years and potentially much more if Bitcoin $ Gain becomes the primary metric by which it is valued, but again, I remain sceptical of that happening. Regardless, the best is yet to come.
11:54

Making Sense Of Strategy What is happening with $MSTR? If you’ve been following me on X for any meaningful length of time, you will know that I have been attempting to calibrate people’s expectations of the stock's performance for the best part of 2025. Here I have synthesised all of my thoughts and distilled them into a single video. If you prefer YouTube, you can watch it here: If you prefer written format, continue reading. The first thing we need to understand is what Strategy is and why people invest in it. Strategy At the highest level, Strategy is leveraged Bitcoin. That’s it. Strategy leverages debt to acquire more Bitcoin. Therefore, the main reason you invest in Strategy is because you want to outperform Bitcoin. The only thing better than Bitcoin is more Bitcoin. The second thing we need to understand is mNAV. mNAV Generally speaking for a pure-play Bitcoin Treasury Company like Strategy, mNAV is a reflection of the market's expectation of future Bitcoin Yield. Bitcoin Yield comes with diminishing returns because each additional Bitcoin purchase contributes less to Bitcoin Per Share. Thus, the larger your Bitcoin stack, the harder it becomes to generate Bitcoin Yield and by extension the harder it becomes to outperform Bitcoin. This is why on a Bitcoin Standard, over a long enough time horizon, mNAV trends towards 1 since the maximum amount of Bitcoin you can own is 21M. With all this in mind, why is Strategy trading where it is and why is it trading at such a low mNAV? There are a few reasons. 1. Strategy Is A Different Company In 2025 Firstly, Strategy is a totally different company in 2025 to the one it was in 2020. For context, believe it or not, the company only introduced Bitcoin Yield and Bitcoin Per Share in the July 2024 Q2 Earnings Call and so it was only after that that they began optimising for those metrics. In my view, that is also when Michael Saylor truly started to understand the opportunity that was in front of him, which is why in October 2024 we saw Strategy announce the 21/21 plan which became the catalyst for the parabolic run we saw in November 2024 where $MSTR went on to briefly hit an all-time-high of around $550. Since people are comparing $MSTR this cycle to the $MSTR of last cycle when it briefly traded at an mNAV of over 8x, it is distorting their expectations. Again, Strategy is a totally different company today with a totally different set of dynamics. 2. New Industry Secondly, we need to recognise that the Bitcoin Treasury Company industry is entirely new which means that the market has been forced to learn and adapt in real-time. With Strategy being the first and by far the largest Bitcoin Treasury Company, it has gained a disproportionate amount of attention and as a result it has attracted a disproportionate amount of speculative capital along the way while everyone has been trying to figure out how to value it. Consequently, in my view, the move we saw in November 2024 was an over-correction to the upside — which by the way coincided with Bitcoin’s parabolic run following Donald Trump’s election win — and what we’re now seeing is an over-correction to the downside. 3. Bitcoin Yield Thirdly, as I mentioned at the beginning, Bitcoin Treasury Companies are currently valued based on how much Bitcoin Yield they are expected to generate in the future. At the time of recording, Strategy currently holds precisely 637,460 Bitcoin — that’s over 3% of the total Bitcoin supply — which means that it is much, much harder to generate meaningful Bitcoin Yield, which again is why we’re seeing the mNAV compress. However, there is a caveat here. There is another metric that Strategy have introduced which is Bitcoin $ Gain. Bitcoin $ Gain is defined as the $ value of newly acquired Bitcoin within any period. Strategy — and I don’t blame them — have been attempting to encourage the market to interpret Bitcoin $ Gain as “earnings” and to value the company based on how much earnings it is expected to generate in the future. For full disclosure, I personally dislike Bitcoin $ Gain as a valuation metric. I think framing it as “earnings” is misleading and disingenuous. I understand why it has been introduced because it speaks the language of Wall Street. However, traditional earnings are final. Bitcoin $ Gain is not because it is forever subject to the price of Bitcoin. Therefore, for Bitcoin $ Gain to be embraced by Wall Street, the market must collectively agree that Bitcoin is going up forever. I remain very sceptical of that happening — especially in the short-to-medium term. However, I am also not attached to my beliefs and so if Wall Street does decide to embrace Bitcoin $ Gain as its primary valuation metric, then $MSTR is likely undervalued by a factor of 5-10x. If not, then $MSTR is likely undervalued by a factor of 1-2x. If you’re not content with the latter being the worst case scenario, then the stock probably isn’t for you. 4. Preferred Products Fourthly, the Strategy thesis right now revolves entirely around the success of its preferred products. Remember, Michael Saylor wants Strategy to become the Amazon of the fixed income market. Thus, we’re not talking about a small innovation here — we are talking about completely transforming global finance. This means that the process of generating awareness and educating the market that will ultimately drive demand for these products is going to take years — not months — which is why you need to have a long time-horizon. Presently, the market is completely discounting the success of Strategy’s preferred products. What it’s not factoring in however is that the capital markets are desperate for yield right now. Thus, when — not if — but when, they eventually wake up to Bitcoin, how do you think they’re going to get that yield? Who is going to be the entity that is offering Bitcoin-backed credit instruments at scale? The answer is obviously Strategy, but again, this is a 5-to-10 year and beyond story. So with all that said, if you’re reading this right now, what should you do? Valuing Strategy There are 3 steps you need to take: 1. Firstly, you need to define your time horizon. In other words, how long do you intend on holding the stock for? 2. Secondly, you need to estimate either — depending on your preferred metric — how much Bitcoin Yield or how much Bitcoin $ Gain you expect Strategy to generate during that period and then calculate how much you expect $MSTR to outperform Bitcoin based on those values. 3. Thirdly, ask yourself whether you’d be satisfied with the level of outperformance you have calculated? In other words, is the trade-off worth it? Or would you be better off investing in either spot Bitcoin, an alternative Bitcoin Treasury Company or a Bitcoin ETF. If you’re satisfied with the level of outperformance that you’ve calculated, then $MSTR it probably a good choice of investment for you. If you're not satisfied, then $MSTR is probably a bad choice of investment for you. I personally believe that $MSTR will outperform Bitcoin by a minimum factor of 1-2x over the next 5/10 years and potentially much more if Bitcoin $ Gain becomes the primary metric by which it is valued, but again, I remain sceptical of that happening. Regardless, the best is yet to come.

Chris Millas

36,835 views • 11 months ago

HYBE and Min Hee-jin NewJeans Controversy from the Perspective of a 20-Year Entertainment Industry Expert | Kim Yoon-ji, Senior Researcher at the Overseas Economic Research Institute of the Export-Import Bank of Korea #1 [Investment Insight] 증시각도기TV HYBE has shown a somewhat immature side throughout this process. The essence of the issue has become less important. Hello, viewers and investors of Stock TV. Recently, there has been a lot of societal concern about the entertainment industry. Last year, it did well, but the question remains about how it will fare this year. We’re joined by Kim Yoon-ji, Senior Researcher at the Korea Eximbank Overseas Economic Research Institute, to discuss this. Welcome. Today, I brought a drink because this topic is not easy to discuss soberly. The situation between HYBE, Min Hee-jin, and NewJeans has escalated, and unfortunately, it’s no longer just management fighting but the artists have joined the fray. I’ve heard from someone in the industry that the close relationship between a producer and an artist is inevitable. In the past, there have been similar cases where producers and artists were tightly knit. Now, something similar has happened with Min Hee-jin and HYBE. Most people outside the industry don’t know the exact terms of the contract between Min Hee-jin and HYBE. As my own son works in the entertainment field, I’m well aware of how important it is to work with a good producer. For a company like HYBE, which has invested tens or even hundreds of billions of won, it’s unthinkable that they would allow NewJeans to separate and go independent after establishing their position. Many in the industry agree that this doesn’t make sense. To the general public, NewJeans might seem like the underdogs, and people might feel they should be allowed to leave. But from the perspective of the entertainment industry, which requires substantial capital to grow, the relationship between investors and artists is key. You can’t discuss this industry without acknowledging the role of investors. This case is different from situations where individual members leave, as seen in the past with groups that had Chinese members. This isn’t about a single member leaving; it’s more about the fact that, in this industry, the producers are as important as the artists themselves. From the beginning, NewJeans has been marketed as Min Hee-jin’s girl group, so the idea of them continuing without her feels different. We need to approach this from a different angle. That said, it doesn’t mean HYBE should completely cut ties. Many people have different initial thoughts about the situation, but the core issue here is the importance of the relationship between producers and the company, especially when substantial investment is involved. From my perspective, the fundamental question is: what exactly was attempted? I still find this unclear. In any company, it's common to hear people say, "I want to quit, I can't work with this boss, I'm leaving tomorrow." We all talk about this with friends or colleagues. Sometimes, we even ask others to let us know if there’s a good opportunity elsewhere. But actually submitting a resignation is a whole different issue. But in the new premise, I still wonder what exactly they were trying to do. What exactly was attempted? We always talk about it at work, right? "I'm going to quit. I can't work with that boss anymore. I'm leaving tomorrow." We always have those conversations. We talk about it with our friends, with team members, and even ask friends outside of work to let us know if they hear of any good positions. But actually submitting a resignation is a whole different issue, isn't it? Looking at how the situation first unfolded, it seems like HYBE was the one to bring things to light. They shared a lot with the press, and Min Hee-jin, the CEO, responded with a strong counterstatement. HYBE was saying, "Min Hee-jin is trying to do this and that," but CEO Min was like, "What else have I done apart from that message on KakaoTalk?" The court also judged that they weren't sure what actions had actually been attempted. To me, this seems like the fact of the matter. Clearly, HYBE's relationship with CEO Min Hee-jin might not be good. There could have been friction about how a subsidiary operates so independently from the parent company. There were likely various issues internally, but they should have been resolved within the company without making the problems visible externally. The fact that they let it spill outside before resolving it was a huge mistake on HYBE's part, revealing weaknesses in their management abilities. In my view, this has greatly devalued HYBE, becoming a powerful force that has dragged down their valuation. Throughout this process, HYBE displayed a level of immaturity, and the core of the issue became less important. The real concern for investors now is whether the company can effectively handle issues like these. Once this problem is resolved, can the remaining HYBE groups continue to grow securely? This business is all about reputation. HYBE is now seen as a company that ousts female CEOs simply because she didn't follow their orders. That perception leaves a lasting impression on people's minds, damaging the company's future operations. From an investor's perspective, two major incidents have happened in quick succession. The first was the boost in value during 2020 when HYBE sold a huge number of albums during COVID-19, creating the sense that the entertainment industry was Korea's next big sector. But then, this recent issue with Min Hee-jin, alongside BLACKPINK's contract situation, has put a serious damper on things. BLACKPINK didn't renew their contract as a group, and though they claim to continue working together in some capacity, it's not the same as before. YG Entertainment's profitability has plummeted, revealing how dependent they were on BLACKPINK. This has left investors wondering whether the entertainment business is just a limited-time, seven-year affair. If BLACKPINK had carried on smoothly into the next generation, it would have seemed like a sustainable business, and investors would have continued to trust in the long-term future of Korean entertainment. But now, we're seeing the cracks in that perception. It’s become a question of how to invest in a business with a lifespan of only seven years, when even the manufacturing industry lasts longer than that. The BLACKPINK incident and the NewJeans situation have both severely harmed investor confidence. HYBE's struggles with its artists are analogous to a manufacturing company facing a revolt from its workers. When investors look at this instability, they start questioning whether the business is even viable. The concept of sustainability has been seriously undermined, and the fact that the seven-year contract issue has been a long-standing concern doesn’t make it any easier to deal with. What used to reassure investors was the belief that when a seven-year contract ended, the company would already have the next seven years planned out, ready to sustain their business. That faith in the big entertainment companies has been shaken. Achieving the kind of success that BTS or BLACKPINK did is incredibly difficult, and passing the baton to the next generation is no simple task. Even though investors had faith that YG would produce another BLACKPINK-level group, now that trust is faltering. However, I do think people are now looking at contracts a bit differently. In the past, when a group disbanded, the members would scatter. But now, groups like BLACKPINK continue to work together even while pursuing solo projects. This shows that they understand the importance of sticking together, and I thought that this might help extend the longevity of these groups. But in reality, very few cases of disbanded groups have seen much success with individual members pursuing separate careers. There aren’t many examples where groups have stayed active for long, especially when individual members run into personal issues. Take Big Bang, for instance—they’ve been around for a while, but their personal scandals have made it hard for the group to recover fully. In the entertainment business, it’s rare for groups to last more than seven years, and age is also a factor. Once a group surpasses the seven-year mark, the members tend to be quite a bit older. With BTS, they need to show a fresh side if they’re to keep running strong. One of the most disheartening things mentioned by the members was that they didn’t feel respected. This ties into a larger issue in our society, as we're seeing with the national discussion around workplace bullying. If we think about how BTS achieved success, it's clear why this is such a serious issue. Back when BTS rose to fame, they shared how they weren’t from one of the top three agencies and positioned themselves as underdogs who worked hard to gain recognition. This resonated with many young people who felt that if you work hard enough, you can succeed, even without the backing of a major company. This message gave hope to many, not only in Korea but also globally. BTS’s fan base, especially in the U.S., includes many people who identify as outsiders, those who don’t feel they belong to the mainstream—whether in terms of race, culture, or social standing. For them, BTS was a source of inspiration, showing that you can still succeed even if you start from the margins. With NewJeans, though there’s talk about Min Hee-jin, the allegations of bullying within the company are hitting a sensitive nerve for fans. It’s unfortunate that the company allowed things to reach a point where such accusations were made. Even if the situation was mostly an internal conflict among the adults in charge, they should have handled it better to avoid involving the artists. In the past, we've seen similar issues, like with Big Bang’s various scandals, which were almost at the level of criminal activity. The current situation with NewJeans might not be as severe, but bullying and exclusion are still serious concerns. Ultimately, experiences like these can serve as valuable lessons for the entertainment industry. This situation has highlighted that the entertainment business is fundamentally about human relationships. From the artists to the products they create, everything revolves around people. The moment someone’s feelings are hurt or relationships are damaged, the entire business can collapse. The entertainment business is all about personal connections, something I've always believed. Recently, I heard about Naver Webtoon’s global success, and it's fascinating to think about how it has outgrown Kakao Webtoon, despite being a later player. Many factors contributed to this success, but someone mentioned that webtoons are also a "personal connection" business. Webtoon creators are tough to manage—they're artists, after all, and keeping them on schedule, especially with weekly deadlines, is a challenging task. CEO Kim Joong has managed to nurture relationships with these creators, making personal connections the backbone of the business. In the entertainment industry, particularly with idols, you can't overlook the importance of personal relationships. The key skill for managing this industry is the ability to connect deeply with both the creators and the artists. HYBE, for instance, doesn’t just need skilled managers who are good with finance or operations. What they truly need are people who can foster those personal relationships, especially when they’re dealing with artists as young as 13 or 15. It’s about ensuring that these young talents feel understood and cared for, so they can be inspired to do their best work. Managing young artists is tricky because their idea of success might be completely different from what adults think. A 13-year-old might not care about owning multiple houses—they might just want to spend time with their family or have the freedom to eat out whenever they want. The manager’s job is to tap into what motivates them and help them thrive in a way that’s meaningful to them. This kind of nurturing is not easy to scale. When a company grows too big, it’s challenging to maintain those close relationships. That's why multi-label approaches, like those seen in large entertainment agencies, are supposed to help. But if personal connections within those labels break down, the whole system can fall apart. This business model seems uniquely suited to Korea. It’s hard to imagine it working the same way in Japan, where there's a more hierarchical, command-driven structure. Japan's entertainment industry often depends on strong, central producers who direct everything. In contrast, Korean idols often rise through collective effort and personal connection, like BTS did. Despite the challenges, I believe Korea’s entertainment sector has room for long-term growth. Many of today’s youth are drawn to this field because it allows them to express their talents and passions. If scandals like the one with NewJeans continue to arise, however, it might dissuade some young people from pursuing these dreams. When you look at what NewJeans members have said, there’s not much to disagree with. They simply want to keep doing what they’ve always done and follow their own creative paths. Ensuring they have the freedom to do so can lead to even greater success. These days, if you ask middle or elementary school students what they want to be when they grow up, many of them will say they want to become idols or YouTubers. They believe that with enough effort, they can make it. The entertainment industry needs to be able to channel that passion and potential into something positive. If Min Hee-jin were to leave HYBE, it’s clear that many companies would be eager to work with her. She mentioned once that “everyone is crazy about money,” and I think that’s why there would be a long line of people wanting to meet with her if she decided to move on. Right now, for example, there are people in the entertainment industry, like CJ, who may not have fully established themselves, or even private investors, just waiting for an opportunity. Many of them are keeping an eye on Min Hee-jin leaving HYBE. This was evident during the recent Tokyo performance, where her creativity was on full display. It was incomparable. That’s why this situation is even more unfortunate. Some people say, "If it wasn’t for the money, how could that group have been created?" But I believe there are people who could have made it happen with or without money. That’s the crucial difference in this case. While I'm not an expert, I was touched by the process of recreating a hit song from a legendary Japanese female singer from the '80s. It felt like a major event. It was amazing because I had never seen anything like it before. Even though I wasn’t familiar with the original song, just seeing it was enough to draw in so much attention and make it feel like a historic moment. That’s what talent is—turning something simple, like a cover song, into a major event. I remember thinking, "How do the Japanese people feel about this?" because the crowd's reaction was incredible. The enthusiasm was surprising, and I wondered what they were thinking while watching it. This is the true power of Korean culture—it’s not just about promoting our own culture but also deeply resonating with others. The entertainment industry’s core business is making audiences happy and even obsessed. Min Hee-jin is undeniably a top-tier artist in this field. If she were to leave HYBE, there would be countless opportunities for her. But if HYBE mishandles this situation, it won’t just be about losing one person—it could destabilize everything. They really need to handle this carefully. As for stocks and investments, that's up to everyone’s individual decisions. We're just having a casual chat here about the entertainment industry. As someone with a child in the business and another who's analyzed the industry, we’re just relaxing with a casual discussion. So, let’s pour a drink and enjoy this conversation. Watch the full video:
24:49

HYBE and Min Hee-jin NewJeans Controversy from the Perspective of a 20-Year Entertainment Industry Expert | Kim Yoon-ji, Senior Researcher at the Overseas Economic Research Institute of the Export-Import Bank of Korea #1 [Investment Insight] 증시각도기TV HYBE has shown a somewhat immature side throughout this process. The essence of the issue has become less important. Hello, viewers and investors of Stock TV. Recently, there has been a lot of societal concern about the entertainment industry. Last year, it did well, but the question remains about how it will fare this year. We’re joined by Kim Yoon-ji, Senior Researcher at the Korea Eximbank Overseas Economic Research Institute, to discuss this. Welcome. Today, I brought a drink because this topic is not easy to discuss soberly. The situation between HYBE, Min Hee-jin, and NewJeans has escalated, and unfortunately, it’s no longer just management fighting but the artists have joined the fray. I’ve heard from someone in the industry that the close relationship between a producer and an artist is inevitable. In the past, there have been similar cases where producers and artists were tightly knit. Now, something similar has happened with Min Hee-jin and HYBE. Most people outside the industry don’t know the exact terms of the contract between Min Hee-jin and HYBE. As my own son works in the entertainment field, I’m well aware of how important it is to work with a good producer. For a company like HYBE, which has invested tens or even hundreds of billions of won, it’s unthinkable that they would allow NewJeans to separate and go independent after establishing their position. Many in the industry agree that this doesn’t make sense. To the general public, NewJeans might seem like the underdogs, and people might feel they should be allowed to leave. But from the perspective of the entertainment industry, which requires substantial capital to grow, the relationship between investors and artists is key. You can’t discuss this industry without acknowledging the role of investors. This case is different from situations where individual members leave, as seen in the past with groups that had Chinese members. This isn’t about a single member leaving; it’s more about the fact that, in this industry, the producers are as important as the artists themselves. From the beginning, NewJeans has been marketed as Min Hee-jin’s girl group, so the idea of them continuing without her feels different. We need to approach this from a different angle. That said, it doesn’t mean HYBE should completely cut ties. Many people have different initial thoughts about the situation, but the core issue here is the importance of the relationship between producers and the company, especially when substantial investment is involved. From my perspective, the fundamental question is: what exactly was attempted? I still find this unclear. In any company, it's common to hear people say, "I want to quit, I can't work with this boss, I'm leaving tomorrow." We all talk about this with friends or colleagues. Sometimes, we even ask others to let us know if there’s a good opportunity elsewhere. But actually submitting a resignation is a whole different issue. But in the new premise, I still wonder what exactly they were trying to do. What exactly was attempted? We always talk about it at work, right? "I'm going to quit. I can't work with that boss anymore. I'm leaving tomorrow." We always have those conversations. We talk about it with our friends, with team members, and even ask friends outside of work to let us know if they hear of any good positions. But actually submitting a resignation is a whole different issue, isn't it? Looking at how the situation first unfolded, it seems like HYBE was the one to bring things to light. They shared a lot with the press, and Min Hee-jin, the CEO, responded with a strong counterstatement. HYBE was saying, "Min Hee-jin is trying to do this and that," but CEO Min was like, "What else have I done apart from that message on KakaoTalk?" The court also judged that they weren't sure what actions had actually been attempted. To me, this seems like the fact of the matter. Clearly, HYBE's relationship with CEO Min Hee-jin might not be good. There could have been friction about how a subsidiary operates so independently from the parent company. There were likely various issues internally, but they should have been resolved within the company without making the problems visible externally. The fact that they let it spill outside before resolving it was a huge mistake on HYBE's part, revealing weaknesses in their management abilities. In my view, this has greatly devalued HYBE, becoming a powerful force that has dragged down their valuation. Throughout this process, HYBE displayed a level of immaturity, and the core of the issue became less important. The real concern for investors now is whether the company can effectively handle issues like these. Once this problem is resolved, can the remaining HYBE groups continue to grow securely? This business is all about reputation. HYBE is now seen as a company that ousts female CEOs simply because she didn't follow their orders. That perception leaves a lasting impression on people's minds, damaging the company's future operations. From an investor's perspective, two major incidents have happened in quick succession. The first was the boost in value during 2020 when HYBE sold a huge number of albums during COVID-19, creating the sense that the entertainment industry was Korea's next big sector. But then, this recent issue with Min Hee-jin, alongside BLACKPINK's contract situation, has put a serious damper on things. BLACKPINK didn't renew their contract as a group, and though they claim to continue working together in some capacity, it's not the same as before. YG Entertainment's profitability has plummeted, revealing how dependent they were on BLACKPINK. This has left investors wondering whether the entertainment business is just a limited-time, seven-year affair. If BLACKPINK had carried on smoothly into the next generation, it would have seemed like a sustainable business, and investors would have continued to trust in the long-term future of Korean entertainment. But now, we're seeing the cracks in that perception. It’s become a question of how to invest in a business with a lifespan of only seven years, when even the manufacturing industry lasts longer than that. The BLACKPINK incident and the NewJeans situation have both severely harmed investor confidence. HYBE's struggles with its artists are analogous to a manufacturing company facing a revolt from its workers. When investors look at this instability, they start questioning whether the business is even viable. The concept of sustainability has been seriously undermined, and the fact that the seven-year contract issue has been a long-standing concern doesn’t make it any easier to deal with. What used to reassure investors was the belief that when a seven-year contract ended, the company would already have the next seven years planned out, ready to sustain their business. That faith in the big entertainment companies has been shaken. Achieving the kind of success that BTS or BLACKPINK did is incredibly difficult, and passing the baton to the next generation is no simple task. Even though investors had faith that YG would produce another BLACKPINK-level group, now that trust is faltering. However, I do think people are now looking at contracts a bit differently. In the past, when a group disbanded, the members would scatter. But now, groups like BLACKPINK continue to work together even while pursuing solo projects. This shows that they understand the importance of sticking together, and I thought that this might help extend the longevity of these groups. But in reality, very few cases of disbanded groups have seen much success with individual members pursuing separate careers. There aren’t many examples where groups have stayed active for long, especially when individual members run into personal issues. Take Big Bang, for instance—they’ve been around for a while, but their personal scandals have made it hard for the group to recover fully. In the entertainment business, it’s rare for groups to last more than seven years, and age is also a factor. Once a group surpasses the seven-year mark, the members tend to be quite a bit older. With BTS, they need to show a fresh side if they’re to keep running strong. One of the most disheartening things mentioned by the members was that they didn’t feel respected. This ties into a larger issue in our society, as we're seeing with the national discussion around workplace bullying. If we think about how BTS achieved success, it's clear why this is such a serious issue. Back when BTS rose to fame, they shared how they weren’t from one of the top three agencies and positioned themselves as underdogs who worked hard to gain recognition. This resonated with many young people who felt that if you work hard enough, you can succeed, even without the backing of a major company. This message gave hope to many, not only in Korea but also globally. BTS’s fan base, especially in the U.S., includes many people who identify as outsiders, those who don’t feel they belong to the mainstream—whether in terms of race, culture, or social standing. For them, BTS was a source of inspiration, showing that you can still succeed even if you start from the margins. With NewJeans, though there’s talk about Min Hee-jin, the allegations of bullying within the company are hitting a sensitive nerve for fans. It’s unfortunate that the company allowed things to reach a point where such accusations were made. Even if the situation was mostly an internal conflict among the adults in charge, they should have handled it better to avoid involving the artists. In the past, we've seen similar issues, like with Big Bang’s various scandals, which were almost at the level of criminal activity. The current situation with NewJeans might not be as severe, but bullying and exclusion are still serious concerns. Ultimately, experiences like these can serve as valuable lessons for the entertainment industry. This situation has highlighted that the entertainment business is fundamentally about human relationships. From the artists to the products they create, everything revolves around people. The moment someone’s feelings are hurt or relationships are damaged, the entire business can collapse. The entertainment business is all about personal connections, something I've always believed. Recently, I heard about Naver Webtoon’s global success, and it's fascinating to think about how it has outgrown Kakao Webtoon, despite being a later player. Many factors contributed to this success, but someone mentioned that webtoons are also a "personal connection" business. Webtoon creators are tough to manage—they're artists, after all, and keeping them on schedule, especially with weekly deadlines, is a challenging task. CEO Kim Joong has managed to nurture relationships with these creators, making personal connections the backbone of the business. In the entertainment industry, particularly with idols, you can't overlook the importance of personal relationships. The key skill for managing this industry is the ability to connect deeply with both the creators and the artists. HYBE, for instance, doesn’t just need skilled managers who are good with finance or operations. What they truly need are people who can foster those personal relationships, especially when they’re dealing with artists as young as 13 or 15. It’s about ensuring that these young talents feel understood and cared for, so they can be inspired to do their best work. Managing young artists is tricky because their idea of success might be completely different from what adults think. A 13-year-old might not care about owning multiple houses—they might just want to spend time with their family or have the freedom to eat out whenever they want. The manager’s job is to tap into what motivates them and help them thrive in a way that’s meaningful to them. This kind of nurturing is not easy to scale. When a company grows too big, it’s challenging to maintain those close relationships. That's why multi-label approaches, like those seen in large entertainment agencies, are supposed to help. But if personal connections within those labels break down, the whole system can fall apart. This business model seems uniquely suited to Korea. It’s hard to imagine it working the same way in Japan, where there's a more hierarchical, command-driven structure. Japan's entertainment industry often depends on strong, central producers who direct everything. In contrast, Korean idols often rise through collective effort and personal connection, like BTS did. Despite the challenges, I believe Korea’s entertainment sector has room for long-term growth. Many of today’s youth are drawn to this field because it allows them to express their talents and passions. If scandals like the one with NewJeans continue to arise, however, it might dissuade some young people from pursuing these dreams. When you look at what NewJeans members have said, there’s not much to disagree with. They simply want to keep doing what they’ve always done and follow their own creative paths. Ensuring they have the freedom to do so can lead to even greater success. These days, if you ask middle or elementary school students what they want to be when they grow up, many of them will say they want to become idols or YouTubers. They believe that with enough effort, they can make it. The entertainment industry needs to be able to channel that passion and potential into something positive. If Min Hee-jin were to leave HYBE, it’s clear that many companies would be eager to work with her. She mentioned once that “everyone is crazy about money,” and I think that’s why there would be a long line of people wanting to meet with her if she decided to move on. Right now, for example, there are people in the entertainment industry, like CJ, who may not have fully established themselves, or even private investors, just waiting for an opportunity. Many of them are keeping an eye on Min Hee-jin leaving HYBE. This was evident during the recent Tokyo performance, where her creativity was on full display. It was incomparable. That’s why this situation is even more unfortunate. Some people say, "If it wasn’t for the money, how could that group have been created?" But I believe there are people who could have made it happen with or without money. That’s the crucial difference in this case. While I'm not an expert, I was touched by the process of recreating a hit song from a legendary Japanese female singer from the '80s. It felt like a major event. It was amazing because I had never seen anything like it before. Even though I wasn’t familiar with the original song, just seeing it was enough to draw in so much attention and make it feel like a historic moment. That’s what talent is—turning something simple, like a cover song, into a major event. I remember thinking, "How do the Japanese people feel about this?" because the crowd's reaction was incredible. The enthusiasm was surprising, and I wondered what they were thinking while watching it. This is the true power of Korean culture—it’s not just about promoting our own culture but also deeply resonating with others. The entertainment industry’s core business is making audiences happy and even obsessed. Min Hee-jin is undeniably a top-tier artist in this field. If she were to leave HYBE, there would be countless opportunities for her. But if HYBE mishandles this situation, it won’t just be about losing one person—it could destabilize everything. They really need to handle this carefully. As for stocks and investments, that's up to everyone’s individual decisions. We're just having a casual chat here about the entertainment industry. As someone with a child in the business and another who's analyzed the industry, we’re just relaxing with a casual discussion. So, let’s pour a drink and enjoy this conversation. Watch the full video:

1tokki

104,638 views • 1 year ago