If you haven't listened to the Charlie Munger podcast episode with @collision, I highly recommend it. Let me briefly share a key takeaway from the episode.
I noticed how Munger repeatedly mentioned Kodak's failure. But this particular bit stood out:
"Imagine the Kodak company, which hired all the PhD chemists, totally dominated the chemistry of film and so forth and had the most reliable trademarks in the whole world. Go through Africa when I was young, there are 2 things you always saw: a Coca-Cola and Kodak. That was the brands all over Africa, the poorest villages. And of course, Kodak went totally broke because somebody invented a new way of taking photographs and developing photographs. And it just obsoleted their whole damn business, and Kodak wiped out its common shareholders. That happens all the time, that kind of thing. And you can't blame the management for it and say, โWell, didn't Kodak invent its own destruction?โ That's hard to do"
I wonder whether watching the demise of such a formidable tech company was a formative experience for Munger (and Buffett) that led them to infer assessing moat, especially duration of moat for tech companies should probably be under "too hard pile".
A friend was mentioning to me that in the lead up to GFC how large money center banks had much loftier perception about their quality and watching some of them crumble totally capsized such perception today. Many even opted for a simpler framework: "NeverBanks"
What is going to be the "Kodak" moment of current generation of investors that will be etched on our collective memories? It's hard to know, but imagine seeing a couple of "magnificent seven" companies completely unravel in the next 10-15 years. Given how dominant these businesses and stocks are, whatever happens to these companies may have profound impact on our psyche for quite some time.
As investors, we don't quite choose our moment in history. History largely happens to us, and what we witness deeply influences how we approach investing.
May we remain intellectually flexible, rational, and more importantly sane.
I noticed how Munger repeatedly mentioned Kodak's failure. But this particular bit stood out:
"Imagine the Kodak company, which hired all the PhD chemists, totally dominated the chemistry of film and so forth and had the most reliable trademarks in the whole world. Go through Africa when I was young, there are 2 things you always saw: a Coca-Cola and Kodak. That was the brands all over Africa, the poorest villages. And of course, Kodak went totally broke because somebody invented a new way of taking photographs and developing photographs. And it just obsoleted their whole damn business, and Kodak wiped out its common shareholders. That happens all the time, that kind of thing. And you can't blame the management for it and say, โWell, didn't Kodak invent its own destruction?โ That's hard to do"
I wonder whether watching the demise of such a formidable tech company was a formative experience for Munger (and Buffett) that led them to infer assessing moat, especially duration of moat for tech companies should probably be under "too hard pile".
A friend was mentioning to me that in the lead up to GFC how large money center banks had much loftier perception about their quality and watching some of them crumble totally capsized such perception today. Many even opted for a simpler framework: "NeverBanks"
What is going to be the "Kodak" moment of current generation of investors that will be etched on our collective memories? It's hard to know, but imagine seeing a couple of "magnificent seven" companies completely unravel in the next 10-15 years. Given how dominant these businesses and stocks are, whatever happens to these companies may have profound impact on our psyche for quite some time.
As investors, we don't quite choose our moment in history. History largely happens to us, and what we witness deeply influences how we approach investing.
May we remain intellectually flexible, rational, and more importantly sane.
Loading suggestions...