The capital allocator playbook is simple to grok. Build a free cash flow generating business. Wait. Take the FCF and then use it to purchase another FCF-generating business. Wait. Use those cash flows to buy yet another FCF generating business. Wait.
Rinse and repeat.
There are many variations of this, of course. The model I described above is pretty much the one @awilkinson uses; it's also the Berkshire model.
In software, the two companies that are most famous for using this playbook are Robert Smith's Vista Equity Partners (uses a lot of debt) and Mark Leonard's Constellation Software (uses equity sales).
Still, similar playbook: acquire defensible high FCF businesses. Use FCF.
Smith is operationally excellent, though. He has a team in Vista that slashes costs and moves engineering to cheaper cities. He then uses the FCF from the business to service the debt load. It's a more typical PE playbook. Only diff is that it's software — so high, high margins.
Leonard's trick is looking for 'vertical market' software companies. Think: power plant software. Who's going to throw out and switch their power plant software provider? Nobody. So it's got a moat.
Same playbook, with variations: Constellation sold equity to fund purchases.
One possible reason people in startupland don't get the capital allocator playbook is that it's not really an operator-oriented worldview.
Nearly everyone I've mentioned in the thread above sets up their org so that other people run their companies. They themselves do not.
So: Smith has an ops arm, Leonard, Wilkinson, Buffett and, urm, every CEO mentioned in The Outsiders delegated the operator function to someone else. They just ran capital allocation decisions.
Two more, just for fun:
Jeff Bezos runs Amazon with bits borrowed from the capital allocator playbook. (Why does he insist on absolute free cash flow?)
Barry Diller runs IAC similarly, but divests successful, FCF-producing subsidiaries after they hit a certain scale.
Sorry, *absolute dollar free cash flow, to be exact. 25iq.com/2014/04/26/a-d… (Google "Tren Griffin + Bezos + absolute dollar free cash flow" and you'll get a number of hits)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you want to build a cognitive flexibility theory 'learning network', it seems the Oxford Handbook of Expertise has a chapter on CFT with a short set of instructions.
1. Collect 10-20 'crossroad cases', which are cases that are densely packed with conceptual features core to the domain. 2. Mark up the concepts across this set (perhaps using tags or backlinks?) 3. Link back to crossroad cases when adding new cases.
4. At some point you will overlearn the crossroad cases and hit something called 'epitome mode', where a small distinctive part of a case will evoke the rest of the case. 5. You can then layer in more complex questions around the cases, like (cont.)
Most of us think that applied knowledge consists of learning generalisable principles and THEN looking for places to apply them.
In this view, cases are simply examples of the principle in action.
But check this out:
The source is Spiro et al’s Cognitive Flexibility Theory, and most of the examples in the paper are about medical education. (A highly applied field, albeit on a messy, complex biological system — but at least with some settled science!)
The opening of Naming the Mind is a REMARKABLE anecdote:
Danzinger walks into an Indonesian university, realises that there is a 'Western psychology' class and an 'Eastern psychology' class, and proposes to do a combined seminar ...
And then fails to find any common ground.
For context, I'm reading this because Lisa Feldman Barrett assigns it to everyone in her lab:
"Chinese thinking often gives no attention to distinctions which for Western minds are so traditional and so firmly established in thought and language, that we neither question them nor even become aware of them as distinctions."