Notes on long term thoughtful investing

Category: Mental Models

Long term consequences of short-termism

Jeff Bezos had sometime back said that there are two kinds of managements, those that create wealth for their shareholders and those who don’t.

Hardly revealing right? After all, why would someone put in hours of labor and humongous amount of resources only to risk it going all the way down to zero?

But each one of us have come across companies or people who does the very same thing – work every day (usually in some wrong direction) to put themselves into trouble.

Think about those inflexible trade unions in an already dying industry. They would fight for a wage hike irrespective of the fact that doing so which reduce company’s life from a couple of years to a couple of months.

Or the management operating within that industry. They would commit further capital in form of machinery upgradation to get an edge over their sick counterparts. Probably because some of their peers are already doing so. They may seem to oblivious to the fact that they are into some kind of an ‘endgame’

From the lenses of Psychology

As a long term investor, there is hardly anything worse that can happen than the management whom you have entrusted your capital gives itself away to short-termism. Prioritizing near term (and hence usually insignificant) achievements over those hard long term oriented resource allocation decisions.

Publicly traded companies more often fall for this trap. Ask any company executive ‘what would you do differently if your company was not publicly traded?’ More often than not you will come across some interestingly revealing answers.

Studying the psychology of human mis-judgement can reveal some useful answers.

(i) Incentives: Every decision is right or wrong based on the time horizon one is looking at. In cricket, for example, aggressive shots from batsman is an absolute must in a T20 game but could be a bane in test cricket. Similarly, if the top executives are paid for scoring high in form of near term earnings, long term investments would be deferred to the extent possible. This would give your rational competitor an important lead. As the saying goes ‘penny wise and pound foolish‘. If managers are paid only for hitting sixes, rest assured you would be losing the gruelling test match.

(ii) Social Proof: A listed company of desent size will generally be chased by several analysts and fund managers. And given that most of these participants like celebrating ‘the quarterly results fest’ as religiously as they can, what invariably follows is a mental pressure of ‘beating the expectations’ every quarter. This is what social proof is – we judge whether a particular behavior is right or not based on other peoples reaction to it. Add to this the fact that your peer group is also into playing this type of quarterly beauty contest and you would know what you have to do.

(iii) Deprival  Syndrome: Sometimes you are so accustomed to a particular way of doing business that its very difficult to leave it for something even better. Sam Walton in his biography mentions that ‘variety’ store owners were so attached to earning 45-60% kind of margins that they couldn’t even think of getting into discount retailing with 30% kind of margins. Despite it being a much superior business model and had a clear preference of buyers towards it. Its very difficult to see your revenues or margins go down. Even if that’s the only way ahead for building a sustainable business.

(iv) Cognitive Dissonance: Business landscape is all full of potholes. And then there are these occasional sharp turns. If one such turn means that you need to part away with your competitive advantage in order to survive, more often you will find that turn would not be taken up. They would continue to drive thinking it as the regular highway! The result – a fatal crash. At the time of iPhone’s launch in 2007, almost all of the top executives at Nokia thought iPhone would not be able to dent Nokia’s market share. We all know what followed.

What’s our way out?

As business owners with long time horizon in our minds, we need to find not only those businesses which are strong & trading at attractive prices but also need to know something about the guys who are running it. Having like-minded guys up at the realm is what one needs.

There are couple of things we can do.

(i) Know how they are incentivised: As Munger says ‘tell me how someone is incentivised and I will tell you how would he behave’. Are those ESOPs have a tenure, on average, of 1-2 years or are long term in nature (>5 years)? How much is the stake of current management into the company? Are they investing a sizable portion of their compensation back into company?

(ii) Past decision-making track record: Have they delayed an important capital expenditure to the extent they could or are they preemptively allocating resources? Have they pro-actively took a toll on their earnings in order to create a stronger business?

(iii) Quarterly results: How do they feel about their quarterly hits & misses? Personally, I would respect someone who can keep himself calm over short term gyrations.

Conclusion

Running a public company is not easy. There are hundreds of people with different attitudes towards wealth creation tracking you every time. This leads to multiple interpretations of the very same facts. It is in the backdrop of this high decibel noise in which managers need to prove their conviction. What we need as long term investors is to partner with those types which have their attitudes and, more importantly, incentives aligned with us.

In a world which is increasingly getting obsessed with short-termism, as falling average holding periods would convey (down from 3-5 years couple of decades back to <12 months now), ability to think about longer time periods is an advantage in itself.

Core Competence

Many a times we come across businesses which seemed to have grown large doing seemingly unrelated activities but has been equally successful amongst them.

Take for example the case of Titan Company Ltd. It has a meaningful presence in watches, jewellery and eye gear categories. When they started back in 1984 focus was on watches alone and did so for next 12 years gaining market share from the then dominant maker of mechanical watches HMT. Then in 1996 they came up with Tanishq brand under which they decided to sell jewellery.

Now, it might look as if an unnecessary distraction when your core business i.e. watches is generating cash flows and your brand ‘Titan’ is becoming dominant in the market. ‘Why get into something like jewellery when your core business is that of watches?’ reluctant investors would think. No one would ask that question today when operating profits derived from jewellery segment is almost 5x that of watches!

So what explains this massive wealth creation which company created for its shareholders over last two decades? It not only broadened its opportunity set – it multiplied it by several times!

It seems that they had a clear picture in their minds that they are not into selling watches like HMT or other dominant players at the time were. They were into the business of creating brands. This subtle distinction enabled them to avoid being complacent and get going crafting one success after another. Today company owns more than 12 brands under its hood spread across multiple categories.

Titan was an exception rather than a norm. Companies in general stick with what they do and are comfortable with what they are doing. This is a classic example of ‘narrow framing’ as Daniel Kahneman would say.

Think about Berkshire (and fortunes of Mr Buffett) had it stuck with the legacy textile business and not moved out of it! You and me would have never heard about this oracle of Omaha! Due to his approach of looking at a company as a conduit for wealth creation and not merely relating them with the activities they indulge for doing so, he had the required mental flexibility to reallocate capital from textile to owning insurance companies, local bank and using the resulting float to invest in listed securities.

He committed himself to wealth creation instead of textile business back in 1970s and is even ready to reduce focus on insurance segment as things stand today. Muddled thinking could only lead to mediocre results, if not a disaster.

CK Prahalad & Gary Hamal in their book Competing for the Future beautifully explained this concept with the help of an example –

For example, while SKF, the world’s leading manufacturer of roller bearings, might be tempted to define its core competence as bearings, such a definition would be unnecessarily limiting in terms of providing access to new markets. The company’s growth need not be totally dependent on finding new uses of roller bearings because, when SKF moves away from a product based view of its competencies to a skill-based view, new opportunities quickly emerge. SKF has competencies in anti-friction (understanding how different materials work together to generate or reduce friction), in precision engineering (it is one of a very few European companies that can machine hard metals to incredibly tight tolerances), and in making perfectly spherical devices.

 

In case of Titan the skill lies in creating successful brands while for Berkshire it is about compounding wealth without risking capital for permanent diminution, thereby creating an enduring enterprise.

Had once dominant companies like Kodak or Nokia tweaked their thinking to view themselves as someone who enables archiving memories or connecting people and serving their on-the-go computing needs, they might have been still around us doing things differently.

While above is certainly an error of commission, there are countless others who are ‘guilty’ of an act of omission – they couldn’t help detaching themselves from the activities they are into. Sometimes it is due to narrow framing and at other times, due to complacency. Either ways, they fail to achieve what they otherwise could have been within their potential.

At worse, they could end up losing what they have created over decades of labour.

Joseph Schumpeter said it best, for such companies, when he observed that successful businesses stand on the ground that is ‘crumbling beneath their feet’.

Adopting the right mindset and figuring out the core competence and focusing on it not only helps in expanding your opportunity set, it also helps in navigating over potential disasters.


Niraj

Stocks discussed in this post are for educational purpose only and not recommendations to buy or sell. Please contact a certified investment adviser for your investment decisions.

Joys of Compounding

“Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it … he who doesn’t … pays it.” – Albert Einstein

 

Eighth wonder of the world! And this is coming from an exceptionally intelligent soul. So what made him say that? And why did he use the words ‘he who understands’? It is just elementary maths – certainly nowhere as complicated as quantum physics.

There are few things which our minds find difficult to grasp. We are basically not wired to fully appreciate the importance of small, incremental changes that happen over an exceptionally large period and compounding happens to fit this bill. And if we are unable to re-wire ourselves and look at things clearly, it certainly would affect our future wealth creation significantly.

Think about someone in his 30s who have managed to save 10,00,000. Going by how most of the people consider parking their savings, he would probably put it in bank FD or might invest in real estate. Both are known to compound money at 6-6.5% post tax over long term. Let us assume that he is saving for his retirement 30 years hence.

Assuming he does so and manages to earn 6.5% p.a., at the end of 30 years, he would have turned those 10 lacs into 66 lacs – this should roughly be equal to inflation rate and our friend has managed to keep up his purchasing power.

But for a second let us think that instead of creating a fixed deposit, he invests in equities (since he is young with sufficiently long time horizon in front of him) and he manages to earn 15% post tax p.a. At this rate he would have turned 10 lacs into 6.6Cr (!) at the end of 30 years. And if his money managers are really good at their job and they happen to compound at 20%, these 10 lacs would be worth 23.7Cr. Notice that for just 5% increase in rate, we have an 4x effect on wealth. This is the power of compounding!

If this individual decides to go with FD / real estate instead of staying put in an instrument which can earn him 15% p.a., he is trading a 100 dollar bill for $10. As per Einstein, our fellow has paid for his lack of understanding of this simple concept called compounding – though he may be blissfully ignorant of the fact.

It has a significant say on how one lives his life and what he finally passes on to his heirs or the society.

There are three things to do with wealth creation through compounding:

  • Starting Point – One needs to put sizable amounts of his savings in order to have a satisfying result in the end. Investing ten lacs would lead to better result than investing ten thousand.
  • Rate of Compounding
  • Period

 Most of us tend to under estimate what a reasonable rate and long period can do to our wealth. And this category includes amateurs trying their hands out in equities and sometimes, even ‘professionals’. These initiated fellows certainly wish to make lot of wealth by investing but focus excessively on the ‘rate’ part of it and almost turning a blind eye to ‘period’ side of it. They want to make as much return as possible in shortest period of time. And this induces them to take unnecessary risks which certainly doesn’t work in their favour when you consider the time side of it.

Assume that our excited amateur has found out a way to make 50% if he is right on something which bears a probability of 80% and lose all of his capital 20% of the time. Irrespective of whatever be his outcome in the interim, we can say that there is high probability to him going to zero in five years.

Risky strategies which can potentially take your capital to zero doesn’t help in wealth creation. Time is something which ensures risk which are possible to play out in short periods of time certainly plays out over longer term.

Permanent loss of capital is the biggest hurdle to compounding and this is what sane investors look to minimise instead of managing temporary loss or volatility.  Buffett said it best when he said:

Rule no. 1: Never lose money

Rule no. 2:  Never forget rule no. 1

 

All we ought to do as investors is to figure out a way to compound money at descent rates involving very low chance of risk of losing money at portfolio level and do so for very long period of time. Buffett once mentioned that maximum loss he has witnessed – during his very long period of time stretching to over decades – is just under 2%.

Studying the methods and hearing the thoughts (and absorbing them) of the some of the successful investors like Buffett, Munger, Graham, Fisher, Greenblatt and the likes who have managed to compound money at good rates for a very long period is a step in that direction.

 

Law of Small Numbers and Investing

A random event, by definition, does not lend itself to explanation, but collection of random events do behave in highly regular fashion – Daniel Kahneman

Currently, I’m reading one of the gem of a book ‘Thinking Fast & Slow’ by noble prize winner Daniel Kahneman which is basically, as one of my friend say, an encyclopaedia in the field of psychology & behavioural finance. A lot of the contents in the CFA level 3 subject on behavioural finance has been taken up from the experiments about which Kahneman talks at length in this book. Do yourself a favour and read (and absorb) what he has to say on the subject.

(F)law of small numbers

In one of the chapters he goes at length to discuss what he calls ‘law of small numbers’

He cites a study of kidney cancer carried on in United States –

A study of the incidence of kidney cancer in the 3,141 counties of the United States reveals a remarkable pattern. The counties in which the incidence of kidney cancer is lowest are mostly rural, sparsely populated, and located in traditionally Republican states in the Midwest, the South, and the West. What do you make of this?

Your mind has been very active in the last few seconds.. You deliberately searched memory and formulated hypotheses. Some effort was involved.. You probably rejected the idea that Republican politics provide protection against kidney cancer. Very likely, you ended up focusing on the fact that the counties with low incidence of cancer are mostly rural. The witty statisticians Howard Wainer and Harris Zwerling, from whom I learned this example, commented, “It is both easy and tempting to infer that their low cancer rates are directly due to the clean living of the rural lifestyle—no air pollution, no water pollution, access to fresh food without additives.” This makes perfect sense.

Now consider the counties in which the incidence of kidney cancer is highest. These ailing counties tend to be mostly rural, sparsely populated, and located in traditionally Republican states in the Midwest, the South, and the West. Tongue-in-cheek, Wainer and Zwerling comment: “It is easy to infer that their high cancer rates might be directly due to the poverty of the rural lifestyle—no access to good medical care, a high-fat diet, and too much alcohol, too much tobacco.” Something is wrong, of course. The rural lifestyle cannot explain both very high and very low incidence of kidney cancer.

Interesting right? Before we answer this, let’s dive down to another, easier to understand case study –

Imagine a large urn filled with marbles. Half the marbles are red, half are white. Next, imagine a very patient person (or a robot) who blindly draws 4 marbles from the urn, records the number of red balls in the sample, throws the balls back into the urn, and then does it all again, many times. If you summarize the results, you will find that the outcome “2 red, 2 white” occurs (almost exactly) 6 times as often as the outcome “4 red” or “4 white.” This relationship is a mathematical fact. You can predict the outcome of repeated sampling from an urn just as confidently as you can predict what will happen if you hit an egg with a hammer. You cannot predict every detail of how the shell will shatter, but you can be sure of the general idea. There is a difference: the satisfying sense of causation that you experience when thinking of a hammer hitting an egg is altogether absent when you think about sampling.

A related statistical fact is relevant to the cancer example. From the same urn, two very patient marble counters take turns. Jack draws 4 marbles on each trial, Jill draws 7. They both record each time they observe a homogeneous sample—all white or all red. If they go on long enough, Jack will observe such extreme outcomes more often than Jill—by a factor of 8 (the expected percentages are 12.5% and 1.56%). Again, no hammer, no causation, but a mathematical fact: samples of 4 marbles yield extreme results more often than samples of 7 marbles do. Now imagine the population of the United States as marbles in a giant urn. Some marbles are marked KC, for kidney cancer. You draw samples of marbles and populate each county in turn. Rural samples are smaller than other samples. Just as in the game of Jack and Jill, extreme outcomes (very high and/or very low cancer rates) are most likely to be found in sparsely populated counties. This is all there is to the story.

We all have read about ‘law of large numbers’ somewhere or the other. It basically says that as the number of experiments (samples) increases, the actual ratio of outcomes will converge on the theoretical or expected ratio of outcomes. But it is the flip side i.e. the law of small numbers which gets lesser attention intuitively and unless that is understood, we have not truly grasp the former concept.

There are few things to internalise here:

  1. Large samples are more precise than small samples. (What constitutes large enough sample size is another discussion entirely. )
  2. Small samples yield extreme results more often than large sample does.
  3. We, as humans, are bad intuitive statisticians as the reasoning behind the finding of kidney cancer survey highlights. This has been the recurring theme across the topics covered in this book.

So what this particular concept has to do with investing?

 A lot I would say when it comes to evaluating businesses and making decisions.

Studying limited or recent history of a business:

In my experience, most of the participants in the market look at last 2-3 year operating history of a business. Then based on those numbers and adjusting for what company has to say they extrapolate and make their own estimates for the next year or two. This seems to be highly inadequate. Ideally, for analysing a business, we need to assess how it has performed over an entire business cycle which includes peaks and troughs. Depending upon the business, these cycles could take anywhere between 3-8 years orbiting across multitude of business conditions.

Even a five-year analysis of past numbers could be inadequate. Remember 2003-08 period? Everything was hunky-dory during this period and someone who thought those margins and growth rates could sustain made lot of bad bets in 2007-2008 period. This could have been avoided if one rather looked at numbers from say the year 2000. FY2000-03 was a painful time for the economy as a whole. So essentially, for most of the businesses out there, 2000-2008 would have covered substantial part of their entire business cycle.

Clearly, two years does not seem to be reasonable sample size.

Implications while evaluating smaller businesses:

Businesses which rely on one narrow / niche type of an activity accounting for bulk of their revenues and operating over smaller geographical area are bound to see higher level of extreme fluctuations in their business operations versus a bigger, more operationally & geographically diversified company. This partly explains why we see higher volatility in stock prices of small caps & midcaps over large caps leading to higher beta – something which ‘modern portfolio theory’ shuns.

This does not mean smaller businesses are bad. In fact, they happen to be an ideal hunting ground for spotting upon mis-priced securities from time to time (but definitely not all the time). Only thing is that we acknowledge the occurrence of such fluctuations (in business as well as market quotations) and prepare to take advantage of the same as when time favours and not run-like-hell when things turn bad temporarily.

As Buffett once said ‘look at market fluctuations as your friend rather than your enemy; profit from folly rather than participate in it.’

Adopting an incorrect time horizon in your investment decision making:

This is one of the worst things investor can do for himself. Thinking in terms of days, weeks or months is hazardous for your investing life. This, in essence, runs polar opposite to what compounding aims to achieve.

One is bound to see higher fluctuations in market price over shorter periods and hence frequent conversion from black to red and then, if he sticks along, black. As Michael Mauboussin notes in one of the chapters of his book ‘More than you know’, probability of making positive spread over one day is 50% while over one year it rises impressively to 72%. Over 10 years, it is about 100%. By trading frequently and focusing on daily price movement, we trade in a 100% probability event for a 50% one. How rational is this?

There is lot to learn from Kahneman and this piece focused on some of the commonly overlooked follies relating to smaller numbers and how it applies to investing. It is recommended to read this book and absorb what it aims to deliver. I aim to post couple of the articles, as when I get time, on some of these concepts and how they are relevant for us as investors.

Thanks for reading. Cheers!

Mental Model: Creatures of Habit

Think how repeatedly every time we go to same grocery store to buy our day to day merchandise. Or how frequently we take the same route to our office everyday though there being a couple of routes of reaching it. We go to the same garage every time our car needs some work to be done. We almost religiously eat the same brand of noodles, brush our teeth from same brand of toothpaste and shave from the same brand of shaving gel & razor month after month. It is startling to see this type of consistency in our day to day life in an era where in ‘disruption’ is the most used (and abused 🙂 ) term!

One of the reason behind all of this is that we humans are loss averse which means our mind wishes to avoid the need for frequent decision making and rather stick with the status quo if it satisfies our basic needs. Given the complexity which the decision making process involves, we satisfice ourselves.

Edgar Rice Burroughs in his book ‘The Beasts of Tarzan’ writes –

We are, all of us, creatures of habit, and when the seeming necessity for schooling ourselves in new ways ceases to exist, we fall naturally and easily into the manner and customs which long usage has implanted ineradicably within us.

So, unless our needs change, our decision remains more or less the same which overtime becomes our habits. As such, ‘creatures of habit’ is an important mental model. Think about the wealth it would have created – and is still creating – for those that have been on the receiving end of this right from our regular grocery store to multi-billion dollar global conglomerates.

Businesses Enjoying this

Let’s see how some of the successful businesses globally are utilising this tendency to their advantage.

Mc Donald’s

It is the world’s largest restaurant chain operating in about 119 countries selling burgers & fries which is certainly not difficult to make or imitated by others. Then what explains this type of success enjoyed by it over the years? Rory Sutherland, Vice-Chairman of international advertising firm Ogilvy & Mather in his interview says –

Why do we go to McDonald’s? Is it the best food in town? Probably not. The search cost of finding the best place to eat in town, given that we’ve only got one shot at having a meal in a strange town, would be pretty high. But also when you go into McDonald’s you know you’re not going to be ripped off, you’re almost certainly not going to be ill. By contrast I’ve become ill after eating at Michelin-Starred restaurants quite frequently. Once you understand the perfectly sensible evolutionary instinct to satisfice, then the preference for brands is not irrational at all: I will pay a premium as a form of insurance for the reduced likelihood that this product is appalling.

So as much as the quality & taste of the delicious food it serves, its huge network of restaurants spread across almost every important city on the planet and the mindshare it has built over decades enables it to compete and succeed by doing something as simple as making and selling good quality burgers.

Starbucks

It is worth prodding the reasons behind the success of a café serving expensive coffee – whose prices were multiple times that of competing brews when it started its operations. Dan Ariely beautifully explained this in his book ‘Predictably Irrational’ –

You are sleepy and in desperate need of a liquid energy boost as you embark on an errand one afternoon. You glance through the windows at Starbucks and walk in. The prices of the coffee are a shock—you’ve been blissfully drinking the brew at Dunkin’ Donuts for years. But since you have walked in and are now curious about what coffee at this price might taste like, you surprise yourself: you buy a small coffee, enjoy its taste and its effect on you, and walk out.

The following week you walk by Starbucks again. Should you go in? The ideal decision-making process should take into account the quality of the coffee (Starbucks versus Dunkin’ Donuts); the prices at the two places; and, of course, the cost (or value) of walking a few more blocks to get to Dunkin’ Donuts. This is a complex computation—so instead, you resort to the simple approach: “I went to Starbucks before, and I enjoyed myself and the coffee, so this must be a good decision for me.” So you walk in and get another small cup of coffee. In doing so, you just became the second person in line, standing behind yourself.

A few days later, you again walk by Starbucks and this time, you vividly remember your past decisions and act on them again—voilà! You become the third person in line, standing behind yourself. As the weeks pass, you enter again and again and every time, you feel more strongly that you are acting on the basis of your preferences. Buying coffee at Starbucks has become a habit with you.

Its rich ambience, huge network of café covering every nook and corner of the US and brand recall adequately supported by distinguished menu makes it a business which its competitors envy.

Gillette

It happens to be one of the world’s most valuable brands with its products – razors & blade – enjoying 70% market globally. Will you buy a product offered by its competing local brand which happens to be 10-15% cheaper? Never. You don’t wish to run the risk of hurting yourselves while shaving. Besides, you might think, the life of a branded product may end being longer than that of a local unbranded one thereby more or less compensating for the price difference.

Great product, almost omnipresent like availability of its products and strong brand recall is something which Gillette enjoys to its advantage.

There are several examples of businesses enjoying one or the other competitive advantage due to the tendency of its customers to maintain status quo and to satisfice rather than acting as rational beings 24×7.

 

Common Themes

Did you notice the common thread running across the above examples? For this principle to work, there must continuity which must be maintained i.e. habits should not be interrupted or broken else they may change. And what ensures that kind of continuity which works in their favour?

Well, first thing is availability i.e. product or service should be available whenever required. Starbucks would have been in a weaker shape had it not been in every corner of US and so would be Mc Donald’s. They need to be present where ever their customers need them. That is another reason why we find Mc Donald’s more frequently nearby interstate highways. We plan our journey stops depending upon where its stores are located so as to avoid eating potentially unhygienic food. Similarly, Gillette’s blades need to be present at a stone’s throw away distance where ever its customers reside.

Second, they need to continuously invest in advertising & marketing to maintain and expand the mindshare which they enjoy. It is an intangible asset which they are building but which gets no mention on their annual balance sheets – given that it cannot be precisely measured. There are a few things cannot be precisely measured but that does not deny their existence..this is an another topic altogether which can be saved for some other day.

Amount spent on it is charged against current profits but it would be reasonable to expect the benefits to flow for quite a long period.

Limitations

Every mental model has its limits. Recognising those limits are sometimes more important they knowing the advantages they may enjoy.

Let’s go back to our garage example. If the mechanic which frequently repairs your car happen to be replaced by a new recently trained one who made a small mistake while working on your car such that it is in a far worse condition now then you had left it in, you might think twice about bringing it back to the same place next time. In the words of Mr. Burroughs, there is a seeming necessity now to retrain yourselves.

When needs change, it is only reasonable to expect change in people’s behaviour which was otherwise set.

So, if tomorrow another competitor selling razors & blades happens to establish trust similar to what Gillette enjoys while selling them at a fraction of what Gillette charges, it would put their business at risk. They key is to assess how deeper has the challenger managed to build that trust and can Gillette also lower the amount which it charges by lowering its cost to its competitor’s levels? In essence, it becomes a race: whether Gillette would be faster to build those cost competencies – and disrupt its own business –  or whether the challenger would go on building a combination of cheaper economics and strong mindshare. By the way, as we speak, this race is actually being unfolding sparked by a small start-up called ‘Dollar Shave Club’ now acquired & resourced by Unilever.

This was just another attempt in order to assess and better understand how far does this simple concept of habit goes – and how powerful it is. It is never just one thing which ensures investing success in a world as complex as the one in which we live. It is rather a latticework of such models. Hope you enjoyed reading this and it added to your understanding of how world works just as much as it did to me while writing this. Cheers.