Thread by @mariodgabriele

The last two weeks have been hard.

I've had a $6B fund try to take down one of my pieces. Today, I'm putting it back up, and explaining what's happened.

More below.

thegeneralist.substack.com/p/the-six-bill…

Let's start from the beginning.

On October 18, The Generalist published "C.R.E.A.M." the first part in a series on "compounders."

What are compounders?

Companies that grow double-digits over an extended period of time.

It was a piece I was proud of. It took a dry subject and made it accessible, fun.

It had been enjoyable to work on. I'd taken pleasure in researching, and collaborating with a smart analyst I'd worked with before.

We can call him Frank.

I put my phone away on Sunday night to relax, and prepare for the week ahead.

When I woke up the next morning, I had a flurry of frantic text messages and four missed calls.

All from Frank.

When I called Frank first thing, he told me what had happened.

Excited about our work, Frank had emailed it to his old Columbia Business School professor.

Let's call her Ana.

Ana was one of the first people to introduce Frank to the topic of compounders in her class.

He'd enjoyed the course, continued to research the topic himself, and even gone on to contract for the $6B fund where she was a partner:

Durable Capital.

Nearly two weeks earlier, Frank had told Ana he was going to write about compounders.

As he told it, she was enthusiastic about his interest in contributing to the subject.

But on Sunday, she'd apparently had a change of heart. She'd demanded we take it down.

In between expressing his bafflement, Frank noted he was in a difficult position:

Pressured by an influential old boss during a period when he was out of work.

He needed a positive reference as he applied to new posts. I agreed to take the article down temporarily.

Frank agreed to try and schedule a call with Ana the next day. In advance, the two of us brainstormed constructive solutions.

Would Durable like us to reference their work? Would Ana like to be interviewed?

I was sure a win/win was possible.

On the phone the next day, Ana struggled to articulate her particular issues.

She claimed she had created a specific definition for compounders, and objected to the "patterns" we shared at the bottom of the piece. These patterns were named things like "good to great."

It was hard to understand what she was objecting to.

When I attempted a follow-up question to better understand her position, she responded that maybe it was time to get the fund's general counsel involved.

I did not want to escalate the issue, even if I did not agree with Ana's assertions.

I agreed to cite the definition Ana claimed as her own, and remove the entire "patterns" section.

I left the call believing we had come to an agreement.

One final note about the call:

Ana went out of her way to express she did not have an issue with the rest of the series we intended to write, providing we did not use patterns like "good to great."

No problem. Durable could have it.

Shortly after the call, I emailed a follow up with the suggested revisions and reconfirmed our plan to write the rest of the series.

I also shared many of the public resources we relied upon along with others that demonstrated the subject was well-covered elsewhere.

I must emphasize this point: there is lots of public information about compounders

You can find papers from Morgan, T Rowe, Brown Advisory; there are articles on Seeking Alpha.

Ana's Columbia co-professor works at Polen Cap, a fund that publishes superb work on the subject.

Indeed, even Ana had commented on the subject the week prior.

In an October 16, podcast she and another member of the Durable team highlighted their work on compounders, even going so far as to talk about the "good to great" pattern.

(It's a great podcast for the record)

Ana didn't respond that afternoon. When I followed up the next day, she accused the article of being "largely plagiarized."

If we didn't stop the "project" she said she would escalate the matter to Durable's general counsel.

I voiced my disagreement in the strongest possible terms, but I felt helpless.

The partner of a $6B fund had twice threatened legal action against me.

I am a solo-newsletter writer with $0 in revenue.

Even though I knew we were in the right, that we had not plagiarized or used "proprietary" information, I felt trapped.

On Wednesday afternoon, I shut myself in my bedroom, covered my head with a pillow, on the verge of tears.

I owe a debt of gratitude to @bradwolverton.

In sharing my circumstances with a few writer friends, he mentioned he'd been in similar situations.

When we spoke on the phone, he said something about this story that stuck with me.

"This is important."

He introduced me to a media lawyer.

This Wednesday, I wrote back to Ana and told her I planned to put the revised article back up on The Generalist website.

Again, I asked to better understand Durable's position beyond a generic objection.

Two days later, and I still don't know.

Rather than responding directly, they first pressured Frank to pressure me to rewrite the article without using the word "compounders."

Would we consider "high-quality growth businesses" instead? There were other, unspecified changes.

This morning, Durable's general counsel responded.

They requested I delay putting the article up and send them all my resources. I had done both more than a week earlier.

I put the article back up. In time, I will write the rest of the series.

thegeneralist.substack.com/p/cream-part-i…

I am not in the clear.

If they want to, Durable could still sue me. Even without merit to their claim, they could bleed me of time, energy, and money.

But I keep thinking of the same few words:

This is important.

I apologize to my mother, who is scared for me, for writing this piece.

I'm v grateful to many. Not least @danshipper @bradwolverton @ljin18 @packyM @JayCoDon @nbt @iankar_ @TurnerNovak @web @Leonlinsx @nbashaw @sidharthajha @sariazout @brettbivens

thegeneralist.substack.com/p/the-six-bill…