With lots of first two, and not much of third, company gets stronger from chaos:
Can buy back stock, undercut competition, acquire rivals/startups at discount
5/
CONCENTRATION
This is a great fragilizer.
When a company relies on a few customers for the bulk of business, a single decision made in a single board room can change your business's future overnight.
6/
SKIN IN THE GAME
It's always nice to see that insiders own lots of the stock. If they do, they'll feel pain when stock goes down, and joy when it goes up.
Either way, they're in the same boat as you.
7/
SOUL IN THE GAME
When the founder is still involved, it's a big plus for me. Founders often view the company as an extension of themselves.
When that's the case, they're far more likely to think long-term, and not let chaos bother them.
It's not a perfect proxy, but I like to see that employees are motivated and inspired. When they are, they, too, are less likely to fold when times get tough.
This isn't a perfect framework by any means. But what I've found:
* A company can have a low score and still be a GREAT investment.
* I have yet to find a company that scored high and wasn't a great (LONG-TERM) investment.
Some of the highest scorers (not exhaustive) include:
In uncertain future, the scale tilts in your favor if there's:
1. Great Mission Statement 2. Wide Moat 3. Optionality 4. Financial Fortitude 5. No Concentration 6. Skin in the Game 7. Soul in the Game 8. Solid Glassdoor ratings
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ This is a stretch, but it's something I keep coming back to when brilliant (@nntaleb) and popular (@sapinker) collide. The recent @WSJ piece does a brilliant job of highlighting the difference between *Skepticism* and *Enlightenment*.
2/ In the end, @yhazony isn't saying we should shun all "progress", but that we need to move slowly, and locally, to make sure that we don't cause *more* damage in our pursuit of *progress* because we don't fully understand the benefits of traditions.
3/ Reminds me of re-telling of Adam and Eve in @_Daniel_Quinn's Ishmael.
The context: Narrator believes agriculture ushered in a new way of living. It pitted Modern (Agricultural) humans against indigenous peoples.
In effect: The Bible = Story to justify agriculture