The Influence of Crowd Psychology on the Investor

In 1895, Gustave Le Bon published his best-known work, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. At the time, Le Bon enhanced the understanding of crowd psychology by researching and proposing several theories of how our beliefs and actions are altered in a “crowd” state.

How can a book from 1895 be useful to investors today? The basic idea is that our minds have not changed over the last 100 years. We still respond to the same emotions and biases as our ancestors. We repeat the same mistakes, generation after generation.

The influence of the crowd has never been more relevant. We must protect our mind from the opinions and ideas we accept. The information deluge is constant. It’s a fuzzy, almost imperceptible line to separate our own opinions from the opinions of the masses. That battle is consistently lost by unprepared investors who let their guard down when making investment decisions. 

Because we, as humans, are susceptible to overconfidence, we assume the crowds have no influence on our mind. We are too confident - it’s always other people’s problem, not ours. We are way too smart to be influenced by crowds.  I wish that were true, but studies clearly indicate otherwise.

How do we fight against becoming the “crowd” and learn to combat the frivolous and dangerous ideas?

Based on Le Bon’s work, I have created 8 lessons to prepare your mind against crowd behavior. (Note: all quotes attributable to Le Bon’s work, The Crowd)

It’s not an easy or painless endeavor. As Le Bon stated, “Science promised us truth, or at least a knowledge of such relations as our intelligence can seize: it never promised us peace or happiness.”

Understanding crowd psychology is not comfortable. We might not like the journey, but ignoring science dooms us to forever remaining in the crowd.

1.       The Struggle to Maintain Independence

It is only by obtaining some sort of insight into the psychology of crowd that can be understood how slight is the action upon them of laws and institutions, how powerless they are to hold any opinions other than those which are imposed upon them, and that it is not with rules based on theories to pure equity that they are to be led, but by seeking what produces an impression on them and what seduces them.

The goal is to understand how a crowd imposes its will on our minds. The first step is always understanding the process. The second step is creating a habit or framework to counter crowd effects.

We see that the disappearance of the conscious personality, the predominance of the unconscious personality, the turning of feelings and ideas in an identical direction by means of suggestion and contagion, the tendency to immediately transform the congested ideas into acts. These receive the principal characteristics of the individual forming part of a crowd. He is no longer himself, but has become an automaton who has ceased to be guided by his will.

Whenever we self-identify with a crowd, whether consciously or unconsciously, we strip away our ability to remain objective and rational. It’s evident in politics and religion. Ever try to have a logical political or religious debate? How quickly did it devolve into an anecdotal argument full of personal attacks and red herrings? Most people quickly move into defensive positions and start to defend their identities, rather than the argument. Once that happens, all reason disappears and no progress is made.

The crowd is at the mercy of all external exciting causes, and reflects their incessant variations. It is the slave of the impulses which it receives. Isolated individuals may be submitted to the same exciting causes as a man in a crowd, but as his brain shows him the in advisability of yielding to them, he refrains from yielding. The truth may be physiologically expressed by saying the isolated individual possesses the capacity of dominating his reflex action, while crowd is devoid of this capacity.

Remember, the crowd doesn’t seek the truth; it’s in constant search of excitement, novelty, and reward. If you understand that, you are prepared to understand events with a free mind. By remaining outside the crowd, you retain your capacity to evaluate the situation independently.

It’s never a problem to agree with the crowd, as long as you come to that decision through independent means. And doing that is never easy.

2.       Excitement and Novelty Drive Belief

The exciting causes that may act on crowds been so buried, and crowds always opening them, crowds are in consequence extremely mobile. This explains how it is that we see them pass in a moment from the most bloodthirsty ferocity the most extreme generosity and heroism.

When financial crowds operate in extreme directions, the market moves defy logic. What excited a crowd one day is erased with a terrifying reversal in sentiment the next day. These actions are unpredictable and wild. Although we try in vain to understand what is happening, it’s sufficient to attribute these moves to crowd behavior. Don’t waste time and energy trying to dissect the “meaning” of what these moves mean. There is no meaning, other than investors are all behaving under the spell of crowd psychology. While other factors, like leverage, enhance these effects, the root cause is always the crowd on one side of the trade.

They may be animated in succession by the most contrary sentiments, but they will always be under the influence of the exciting causes of the moment…Still, though the wishes of crowds are frenzied they are not durable. Crowds are as incapable of willing as of thinking for any length of time.

On the positive side, the extreme swings don’t last. Fundamentals eventually matter, and the crowds that operate irrationally eventually run out of assets to sell or run out of money to buy. The best course of action is remaining patient and vigilant. These are the opportunities to take advantage of the crowd, by using their instability against them.

3.       Crowd Beliefs Shut Down Thinking

A crowd is not merely impulsive and mobile. Like a savage, it is not prepared to admit that anything can come between its desire and the realization of its desire. It is less capable of understanding such an intervention, a consequence of the feeling of irresistible power given it by its numerical strength. The notion of impossibility disappears from the individual in a crowd.

Investors during the 2000 tech bubble and the 2006 housing bubble understand why the notion of impossibility disappears from the investment crowd. During those bubbles, tech and housing assets were viewed as can’t miss opportunities, and no amount of rational thinking could prevent investors from believing it was different this time. These assets couldn’t fail because of new paradigms, due to the Internet emergence in 2000 or the unending real estate boom in 2006. Owning these assets and watching them rise reinforced the belief that these assets couldn’t go wrong. But they did, and in a big way.

The improbable does not exist for crowd, it is necessary to bear the circumstance well in my to understand the facility with which are created and propagated the most improbable legends and stories…The simplicity and exaggeration of the sentiments of crowds have for result that a throng knows neither doubt nor uncertainty.

Legends and stories, not facts and data, drive investment booms and busts from healthy to extreme. It’s the stories that convince us of the invincibility and permanence of new ideas. During a bull market, our minds run wild with the possibilities of fantastic gains and newfound wealth. During a crisis, we believe everything is going to zero and assume permanent financial destruction.

The commonality behind both situations is our reliance on stories, rather than relying on factual research and historical lessons. We quickly dismiss any logical approach, because we’ve attached our opinions to the movement of the crowd.  

Whether the feelings exhibited by a crowd be good or bad, they present the double character being very simple and very exaggerated. On this point, as on so many others, and individual in a crowd resembles primitive beings.

We become primitive, in the sense we abandon our developed cognitive processes and let our reptilian brain direct our actions. Our primitive brain was well-designed for living 2,000 years ago, but has not adapted to the modern financial world. Because fear and greed operate on our basic, primitive minds, we must deliberately engage our higher cognitive mind to think clearly.

4.       Emotion Dominates Facts and Evidence

An individual may accept contradiction and discussion; a crowd will never do so.

The chain of logical argumentation is totally incomprehensible to crowds and for this reason is permissible to say that they do not reason or that they reason falsely and are not to be influenced by reasoning.

Crowds dismiss all alternative explanations and contradictory evidence. There are excuses for everything, and no amount of facts or reason will persuade a crowd.

Evidence may be accepted by an educated person, but the convert will be quickly brought back by his unconscious self to his original conceptions. See him again after the lapse of a few days and he will put forward a fresh his old arguments and exactly the same terms.

We can educate, train, and then educate some more, but still never escape the grasp of the crowd. It takes persistent training to re-wire our brains to instinctively recognize and fight the influence of the crowd. It doesn’t happen overnight.

I’ve personally experienced and seen others attempt to change behavior by just adding more information and assuming that will change behavior. Because our behavior is based on cognitive processes evolved over millennia, it’s going to take more than new info to make the change. It’s about using new info to transform habits into permanent behavior change.

That’s why you see investors make the same, repeated mistakes. We can spend all day convincing people of one thing, only to have them revert back a day later. The reason is two-fold. It’s the brain’s way of resisting change and reflects our ill-designed attempts to convert behavior. Permanent, long-term behavior modification requires repeated exposure to live training. Anything else is futile.

A longtime is necessary for ideas to establish themselves in the minds of crowd, but just as long a time is needed for them to be eradicated. This reason crowds, as far as ideas are concerned, are always several generations behind learned men and philosophers.

When we think of “learned men and philosophers” within investing or business, we gravitate toward the those who have proven their investing acumen over decades. JP Morgan, John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Ben Graham, Warren Buffet. All exceeded their generation by operating outside of the normal crowd state. The goal is to incorporate the lessons of the historic greats and operate with different principles than the crowd. It’s not enough to know different information. We must operate with a different set of principles than the crowd: independence, grit, intelligence, foresight, contrarianism, and persistence.

It is not than the facts and themselves that strike the popular imagination, but the way in which they take place in our brought under notice. The epidemic of influenza may very little impression on the population because they happened a little at a time, as opposed to one giant event that would’ve caused an uproar among the population.

The hardest beliefs to challenge can be the most non-obvious. Incorrect beliefs that have been learned gradually often lack the vividness that would normally cause us to re-examine those beliefs.

5.       Strong Beliefs are Fine, But be Open to Change

A person is not religious solely when he worships a divinity, but when he puts all the resources of his mind, the complete submission of his will, and the whole sold ardor of fanaticism at the service of a cause or an individual becomes the goal and guide of his thoughts and actions.

It’s fine to have beliefs, and strong beliefs at that. But all beliefs need at least 3 qualities:

1.       Evidenced based – valid, fundamental data should support your beliefs. Data is not always perfect and is never guaranteed, especially when thinking about the future. But there is no room for mythical or untested beliefs to drive investing decisions.

2.       Open to modification or reversal – strongly held beliefs should be changed when the weight of the evidence tips to the side of change. Beliefs should be held tentatively, ready to be changed when sufficient data/evidence is presented. Some beliefs may change daily (for example, because prices move daily, what is a terrible deal at one price is a great deal at another price) or may be rarely change (the idea that investing and saving for the future is a good thing). There’s no easy answer to this, other than to evaluate each belief on its own when new evidence is presented.

3.       Separate beliefs from your identity – if you attach beliefs to your identity, personality, or other personal trait, you run the risk of keeping beliefs not because they are correct, but because you become more interested in defending your ego and reputation. For example, if you always self-identify as bullish and optimistic on the stock market, it’s challenging to change your mind when the market is overvalued, because you have created a reputation and identity as someone who is perpetually bullish. It’s hard to have the guts to change your mind when your identity is something else.

You’ve created cognitive dissonance when your identity is telling you one thing (buy stocks) and the evidence is telling you another (sell stocks). The identity almost always wins, because our minds have a bigger interest in protecting our identity than searching for the truth. This is deadly for investors. Don’t take permanent stances in investing. Don’t create reputations or identities that make it painful to change your mind.

The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduced them. Whoever can supply them with delusions is easily their master, whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.

Many investors are eternally searching for the magic formula or guaranteed path to riches. They spend thousands of dollars on programs and systems that supposedly “reveal” the inside secrets of investment success. When viewed through a logical, rational lens, these claims are ludicrous and insane. But when viewed through the “crowd” lens, these programs make perfect sense. They appeal to investor’s desire for a can’t miss system, no matter how incredulous.

Investors must recognize when they fall under the spell of delusional, yet seductive systems that promise riches. It’s an inherent bias we all need to fight, and the minute we let our guard down, we succumb to our primal, crowd-based motives.

The experiences undergone by one generation are useless, as a rule, for the generation that follows, which is the reason why historical facts, cited with a view to demonstration, serve no purpose.

There are several reasons why investors forget the lessons of the past.

1.       We assume the people in the past were unsophisticated/unintelligent. We will never make those same mistakes. Wrong. While we have certainly advanced as a society, poor investing decisions in the past were usually never the result of a relative disadvantage in IQ or decision making. While we may know more today, we are also making decisions in a world that is more complicated and uncertain than it was in the past. In absolute terms, we may have an edge, but we are playing a more complex investing game. We are in a tougher environment, so we are relatively no better off.

2.       Hindsight is 20/20 – With the benefit of hindsight, we create all sorts of reasons why we wouldn’t have made those same mistakes. But it’s always obvious in retrospect, never in real-time. If you think it’s so easy, write down some can’t miss ideas today, and track those over a course of 3-5 years. Chances are you will have as many misses and wins, if not more misses. It’s a simple experiment to prove how hard it is to move hindsight into foresight.

3.       We assume the environment today is more predictable because we have access to more immediate information. Yes, we do have more information, and some of it is extremely valuable. However, that information comes with a lot of noise (data or information that has no predictive use or functional utility). And the catch is, it’s difficult to separate those two groups. We often get a mess of data and try to figure out what is news and what is noise. There’s never a clear answer, because what is useful in one environment is useless in another. You must be very clear about what edge you have and understand your circle of competence. Once you start to drift outside your core competence, you make all sorts of mistakes, including mistaking noise for news.

 6.       Understand the Psychological Tricks Preying on Your Mind

We’ve already discussed the problems dealing with unpredictable and complex investment situations. But there is even more trouble for us.

The financial industry promises to help investors navigate the complex investment world. Of course, they don’t expect to do that for free. It’s a lucrative industry that spawns many charlatans, con men, and promotors who want a slice of our wealth in exchange for bogus market-beating systems and hot stock tips.

These are both people and corporations full of bad advice and misdirection. To defeat them, you need know the tricks they play. Le Bon suggests several situations and triggers to watch for to understand when you are being pulled in the wrong direction.

We have already shown the crowd or not to be influenced by reasoning, and can only comprehend rough and ready associations of ideas. The orators who know how to make an impression upon them always appealing consequence to their sentiments and never to the reason. The laws of logic have no action on crowds.

The first idea: understand they always appeal to emotion, not reason. They sell with stories and dreams, not verified facts and evidence. If they based their approach on raw evidence, 1) their performance/client results look terrible, and 2) it does little to inspire wealth and riches when looking at cold numbers. They need to get you excited to get rich, or at least distract you from the flaws and risks in their argument. So always separate fact from story.

Given to exaggeration and its feelings, a crowd is only impressed by excessive sentiments. An orator wishing to move a crowd must make an abusive use of violent affirmations. To exaggerate, to affirm, to resort to repetitions, and never to attempt to prove anything by reasoning or methods of argument well known to speakers at public meetings.

It is terrible at times to think of the power that strong conviction combined with extreme narrowness of mine gives a man possessing prestige. It is nonetheless necessary that these conditions should be satisfied for man to ignore obstacles and display strength the will and a high measure. Crowds instinctively recognize and men of energy and conviction the Masters they are always in need of.

Two elements persuade a crowd. Strong conviction and extreme narrowness. Strong conviction delivers an overwhelming aura of superiority and challenges your ability to think independently, even if the conviction is baseless. Extreme narrowness reinforces that there is only one solution and path forward. It leaves no room for alternative explanations or doubt.

7.       How False Beliefs Spread

The first is that as the old beliefs are losing their influence to a greater and greater extent, they are ceasing to shape the ephemeral opinions of the moment as they did in the past. The weakening of general beliefs clears the ground for crop of haphazard opinions without a past or future.

As economic and investment cycles progress, investors abandon common-sense, fundamental principles and gravitate towards riskier, crowd-like behavior. There is always a rationale why the old beliefs don’t matter and the new ideas must be the new answer.

A second reason is that the power of crowds being on the increase, and this power being less and less counterbalance, the extreme ability of ideas, which we have seen to be a peculiarity of crowds, can manifest itself without let or hindrance.

As ideas spread, they build momentum and a cult-like power that begins to defy reason and logic. Unfortunately, these ideas don’t need any extra push when they start to spread. They build their own momentum through the explosive exponential power of networks.

8.       Why We are Doomed to Repeat Our Mistakes

Judging by the lessons of the past, and by the symptoms that strike the attention on every side, several of her modern civilizations have reached that phase of extreme old age which precedes decadence. It seems inevitable that all peoples should pass through identical phases of existence, since history is so often seem to repeat its course.

One of Le Bon’s final lessons is the idea that humans continue to repeat the same mistakes of the past. No matter how much we improve our understanding, intelligence, or technology, we have ingrained biases and tendencies that we can never permanently overcome. Due to laziness and ignorance, we assume these lessons don’t apply to us, because it’s so hard to create an outside, objective filter to view our own actions. Even though we can’t remove them, we can circumvent and avoid the consequences by deliberately understanding the underlying causes. The key word is deliberate, because just adding more information will not work. We need a conscious effort to understand the historical lessons and design ways of countering the effects of crowd-like behavior.

8 Principles to Become an Exceptional Performer

We all experience the joys and frustrations of learning a new skill. From athletics, to music, to our professional lives, we strive to master our craft and improve our ability. Weekend golfers try to take strokes off their game, amateur musicians strive to create new music, and doctors work to better care for their patients.

Some have highly specific goals in mind and devote constant effort to improvement. Others may take a relaxed, less intense approach. Both groups encounter similar frustrations along the way. Why do we often plateau and struggle after a period of time? Why do some people improve at a faster rate than others?

Given our busy lives and competing demands, how can we best improve from average to exceptional?

K. Anders Ericsson has spent his professional life figuring out what separates elite performers from the average masses. As a Florida State psychology professor and author of Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise, Ericsson is the go-to expert behind the principles of exceptional performance. His results and lessons are counterintuitive. What doesn’t matter is innate talent or genetics. What does matter is the deliberate and focused attention we apply to our practice and training.

To preview, we have complete control of our ability to learn any new skill. However, society reinforces the myth that experts are born and not made, making deliberate effort a fruitless endeavor. It’s a mindset instilled when we are young. We rationalize poor performance and deflect personal responsibility. Instead of accepting responsibility, we blame a lack of talent.

Ericsson’s research has proven this wrong. Let’s explore how to apply 8 principles, based on Ericsson’s work, to become an elite performer.

1.       Your Abilities are not Fixed

…both the brain and the body retain a great deal of adaptability throughout adulthood, and this adaptability makes it possible for adults, even older adults, to develop a wide variety of new capabilities with the right training…If you talk to these extraordinary people, you find that they all understand this at one level or another. They may be unfamiliar with the concept of cognitive adaptability, but they seldom buy into the idea that they have reached the peak of their fields because they were the lucky winners of some genetic lottery. They know what is required to develop the extraordinary skills that they possess because they have experienced it firsthand. - Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise

The first idea is the belief that your abilities are not fixed. Once you believe you can influence and change yourself, you see struggles as learning opportunities, not judgments on your self-worth. You must develop the habits and routines to transform struggles into learning lessons to build permanent change.

But we now understand that there’s no such thing as a predefined ability. The brain is adaptable, and training can create skills—such as perfect pitch—that did not exist before. This is a game changer, because learning now becomes a way of creating abilities rather than of bringing people to the point where they can take advantage of their innate ones. In this new world it no longer makes sense to think of people as born with fixed reserves of potential; instead, potential is an expandable vessel, shaped by the various things we do throughout our lives. Learning isn’t a way of reaching one’s potential but rather a way of developing it. We can create our own potential. - Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise

It’s about creating and developing new skills, not uncovering hidden skills. There is no such thing as hidden talent. We have been taught that we should search for our inherent passion because that must be the one thing we will be good at. We now understand there are very few things genetically “set” from the beginning and almost all new skills can be created and developed. The important question is how to create those skills.

2.       Hard Work is not Enough

But sometimes these books leave the impression that heartfelt desire and hard work alone will lead to improved performance— “Just keep working at it, and you’ll get there”—and this is wrong. The right sort of practice carried out over a sufficient period of time leads to improvement. Nothing else. - Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise

“Just Work Hard”. Those three words are misused more often than any other piece of advice. It’s appealing because it makes sense on the surface. Of course nothing meaningful develops with partial effort. Read the histories of great leaders or musicians and you will always find a hard-fought struggle. We are taught this from an early age from our parents or coaches. It’s a good attitude to cultivate.

But there’s a problem. The growth benefits of hard work stop after a certain amount of time. No matter how much hard work we put in, our ability stops improving. It’s a frustrating situation. Why is something that worked in the past all of a sudden not working?

It stops working because we no longer direct that hard work into routines that stretch and expand our skills. We just repeat what we know, without embracing new challenges. Our abilities no longer respond to traditional hard work. We need something else…

Why should the teaching techniques used to turn aspiring musicians into concert pianists have anything to do with the training that a dancer must go through to become a prima ballerina or the study that a chess player must undertake to become a grandmaster?

The answer is that the most effective and most powerful types of practice in any field work by harnessing the adaptability of the human body and brain to create, step by step, the ability to do things that were previously not possible. - Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise

The underlying habits and principles behind world class performance apply equally to athletics, music, or entrepreneurship. While the day-to-day activities are different, the principles of training design and growth are constant across domains.

If you wish to develop a truly effective training method for anything—creating world-class gymnasts, for instance, or even something like teaching doctors to perform laparoscopic surgery—that method will need to take into account what works and what doesn’t in driving changes in the body and brain. - Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise

We miss harnessing the power to optimize how our mind incorporates and masters new skills. We’ve been coasting along, using vague ideas like “working hard” without realizing it’s only half the equation. The other half, based on Ericcson’s research, is too often neglected.

3.       Showing Up is not Enough

We all follow pretty much the same pattern with any skill we learn, from baking a pie to writing a descriptive paragraph. We start off with a general idea of what we want to do, get some instruction from a teacher or a coach or a book or a website, practice until we reach an acceptable level, and then let it become automatic. And there’s nothing wrong with that. For much of what we do in life, it’s perfectly fine to reach a middling level of performance and just leave it like that. - Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise

So far, so good. With the help of a coach and some instruction, we practice and make progress. As Ericsson stated, that works for most activities in life. We don’t have to be superb at everything. But what about the skills we do want to be superb at? Why do we struggle to progress beyond good enough?

But there is one very important thing to understand here: once you have reached this satisfactory skill level and automated your performance—your driving, your tennis playing, your baking of pies—you have stopped improving. - Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise

Most of us reach an acceptable level without knowing it. We keep practicing and assume we are improving, yet our real-world performance never improves.

How do we overcome this? Testing and feedback. We need to continually test our skills to provide objective feedback on our current ability. Without testing, we are left to guess at our skill level. And guesses don’t work for elite performers.

Testing provides feedback, giving us the direction and data to redirect our routines and practice. Our practice habits must evolve and adapt. If we keep the same static practice routines, we never develop new ways to improve our weaknesses.

People often misunderstand this because they assume that the continued driving or tennis playing or pie baking is a form of practice and that if they keep doing it they are bound to get better at it, slowly perhaps, but better nonetheless. They assume that someone who has been driving for twenty years must be a better driver than someone who has been driving for five, that a doctor who has been practicing medicine for twenty years must be a better doctor than one who has been practicing for five, that a teacher who has been teaching for twenty years must be better than one who has been teaching for five.

But no. Research has shown that, generally speaking, once a person reaches that level of “acceptable” performance and automaticity, the additional years of “practice” don’t lead to improvement. If anything, the doctor or the teacher or the driver who’s been at it for twenty years is likely to be a bit worse than the one who’s been doing it for only five, and the reason is that these automated abilities gradually deteriorate in the absence of deliberate efforts to improve. - Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise

The dirty secret of “experience” is that people with 20 or 30 years of experience are often no better than those with 10 or 15 years of experience. We may want to believe that more is better, but have we ever tested or validated that assumption? Probably not. Most likely, we have assumed we must be better because we need to justify the years of effort and time invested. It’s agonizing to think about spending 20 years doing something and not improving. But we have to face reality, not what’s comfortable, if we want to grow.

This brings back the importance of testing and feedback. We must have objective guidance on our ability. If we assume or guess, we are fooling ourselves into believing we are something that we are not. And that is the downfall of anyone striving to become exceptional at their skill.

4.       Engage in Purposeful Practice

Purposeful practice has several characteristics that set it apart from what we might call “naive practice,” which is essentially just doing something repeatedly, and expecting that the repetition alone will improve one’s performance.

Purposeful practice has well-defined, specific goals. Our hypothetical music student would have been much more successful with a practice goal something like this: “Play the piece all the way through at the proper speed without a mistake three times in a row.” Without such a goal, there was no way to judge whether the practice session had been a success. - Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise

By using goals, you transform random action into deliberate processes. Goal-based practice can be tracked and measured, providing valuable feedback. By focusing on specific goal-driven processes, we build practical skills.

Purposeful practice is all about putting a bunch of baby steps together to reach a longer-term goal.

Purposeful practice is focused.

Purposeful practice involves feedback. You have to know whether you are doing something right and, if not, how you’re going wrong.

Purposeful practice requires getting out of one’s comfort zone.

- Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise

These four ideas move your actions beyond showing up and instead direct your effort into long-term progress. Small steps, focus, feedback, and uncomfortability are necessary for growth.

5.       Get Comfortable with being Uncomfortable

This is a fundamental truth about any sort of practice: If you never push yourself beyond your comfort zone, you will never improve…Generally the solution is not “try harder” but rather “try differently.” It is a technique issue, in other words.

The best way to get past any barrier is to come at it from a different direction, which is one reason it is useful to work with a teacher or coach. Someone who is already familiar with the sorts of obstacles you’re likely to encounter can suggest ways to overcome them. - Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise

Purposeful practice focuses on things we can’t do well. If we keep repeating the things we are good at, we never overcome the obstacles that hold us back. Confronting our weaknesses is painful. It requires honesty and humility about our shortcomings. Practicing our weak points isn’t fun. It’s much easier to practice the things we are good at, since it’s inherently enjoyable to succeed. But we don’t progress when repeating the things we are good at.

If you can’t find a coach to provide feedback, you must create your own feedback to leverage. If it’s a physical skill, a video recording provides an impartial, outside look at your performance. If it’s academic/knowledge based, testing delivers valuable feedback. You may be tempted to skip these ideas and just “trust” your instincts. Unfortunately, you will be stuck wondering why you don’t see the progression you expect.

6.       Separate Knowledge from Skills

When you look at how people are trained in the professional and business worlds, you find a tendency to focus on knowledge at the expense of skills. The main reasons are tradition and convenience: it is much easier to present knowledge to a large group of people than it is to set up conditions under which individuals can develop skills through practice. - Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise

Always separate knowledge from skill. It’s easy to add knowledge and confuse that with skill improvement. When we think of learning, we assume knowledge accumulation is good. But knowledge accumulation that doesn’t transfer to applied skills doesn’t help us. We may feel confident in the moment but we are mistaking that confidence for progress. Think about this. Of all the books you have read in your lifetime, how many have delivered actionable improvement? Have you converted that knowledge into long-term, applied skill?

From the perspective of deliberate practice, the problem is obvious: attending lectures, minicourses, and the like offers little or no feedback and little or no chance to try something new, make mistakes, correct the mistakes, and gradually develop a new skill. It’s as if amateur tennis players tried to improve by reading articles in tennis magazines and watching the occasional YouTube video; they may believe they’re learning something, but it’s not going to help their tennis game much. Furthermore, in the online interactive approaches to continuing medical education, it is very difficult to mimic the sorts of complex situations that doctors and nurses encounter in their everyday clinical practice.

It is not just the medical profession that has traditionally emphasized knowledge over skills in its education. The situation is similar in many other professional schools, such as law schools and business schools. In general, professional schools focus on knowledge rather than skills because it is much easier to teach knowledge and then create tests for it. The general argument has been that the skills can be mastered relatively easily if the knowledge is there. One result is that when college students enter the work world, they often find that they need a lot of time to develop the skills they need to do their job. Another result is that many professions do no better a job than medicine—and in most cases, a worse job—of helping practitioners sharpen their skills. Again, the assumption is that simply accumulating more experience will lead to better performance. - Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise

As an investing professional, I’ve struggled to convert information into skill improvement. I’ve found it’s easy and seductive to absorb information, but much more challenging to find evidence my investing skill has actually increased. That’s the challenge for all knowledge workers. How do you ensure your skills are improving?

7.       Create Daily Routines

The hallmark of purposeful or deliberate practice is that you try to do something you cannot do—that takes you out of your comfort zone—and that you practice it over and over again, focusing on exactly how you are doing it, where you are falling short, and how you can get better. Real life—our jobs, our schooling, our hobbies—seldom gives us the opportunity for this sort of focused repetition, so in order to improve, we must manufacture our own opportunities. - Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise

Deliberate and focused effort doesn’t happen by itself. We all have busy lives with little free time. Without consciously directing our behavior towards building expertise, we will never create consistent time for improvement. The first step must be a conscious decision to allocate time to this process. You will have to give something up. No one said this will come without at cost.

A similar thing is true for those who maintain purposeful or deliberate practice over the long run. They have generally developed various habits that help them keep going. As a rule of thumb, I think that anyone who hopes to improve skill in a particular area should devote an hour or more each day to practice that can be done with full concentration. Maintaining the motivation that enables such a regimen has two parts: reasons to keep going and reasons to stop. When you quit something that you had initially wanted to do, it’s because the reasons to stop eventually came to outweigh the reasons to continue. Thus, to maintain your motivation you can either strengthen the reasons to keep going or weaken the reasons to quit. Successful motivation efforts generally include both. - Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise

Habits, routines, and schedules provide a necessary structure to enable commitment and persistency of the task at hand. Relying on willpower, luck, or fate won’t last. By creating a consistent habit to practice one hour a day, at a regular time, we stop trying to fit it in our schedule but rather fit our schedule around the practice. Once our routine is locked in our schedule, there is no ambiguity or uncertainty of when it will be done.

One of the best bits of advice is to set things up so that you are constantly seeing concrete signs of improvement, even if it is not always major improvement. Break your long journey into a manageable series of goals and focus on them one at a time—perhaps even giving yourself a small reward each time you reach a goal.            -Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise

Instead of trying to tackle a hundred things at once, practice the building blocks one at a time. Focus each practice day on one unique aspect of your skill. Do this over the course of a year and you have a solid foundation of practical skills. Avoid the urge to do too much at one time. We all want to overachieve, but trying to do too much causes burnout and unfocused effort. Trust the process and commit to improving one thing at a time.

8.       Take Charge of Your Success

We need to start now. For adults who are already in the work world, we need to develop better training techniques—based on the principles of deliberate practice and aimed at creating more effective mental representations—that not only will help them improve the skills they use in their current jobs but that will enable them to develop new skills for new jobs. And we need to get the message out: you can take charge of your own potential. But it is the coming generations who have the most to gain.

The most important gifts we can give our children are the confidence in their ability to remake themselves again and again and the tools with which to do that job. They will need to see firsthand—through their own experiences of developing abilities they thought were beyond them—that they control their abilities and are not held hostage by some antiquated idea of natural talent. - Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise

Success results from conscious and deliberate effort to improve our skills. No one will do this for you. As the world becomes more competitive and meritocratic, it’s your responsibility to grow your skills and demonstrate expertise. The idea of genetics or innate talent limiting your potential isn’t the real constraint. We have 10x the potential if we learn and grow using the principles of exceptional performers.

Peak Takeaways:

1.       Your Abilities are not Fixed

2.       Hard Work is not Enough

3.       Showing Up is not Enough

4.       Engage in Purposeful Practice

5.       Get Comfortable with being Uncomfortable

6.       Separate Knowledge from Skills

7.       Create Daily Routines

8.       Take Charge of Your Success

 

4 Secrets to Improve Your Workday: How to Build Career Success

#1 Routine, Not Willpower, is the Key to a Successful Workday

It was as if the first few times a rat explored the maze, its brain had to work at full power to make sense of all the new information. But after a few days of running the same route, the rat didn’t need to scratch the walls or smell the air anymore, and so the brain activity associated with scratching and smelling ceased. It didn’t need to choose which direction to turn, and so decision-making centers of the brain went quiet. All it had to do was recall the quickest path to the chocolate. Within a week, even the brain structures related to memory had quieted. The rat had internalized how to sprint through the maze to such a degree that it hardly needed to think at all. The key to a successful workday is to replace manual effort with habits and routines. Habits allow us to process more work without using extra energy that drains us by mid-afternoon. The attitude of hard work is great, but hard work has a downside because it depletes our energy levels when focused on low-value activities. We can’t produce quality work. -The Power of Habit, Duhigg

In his book, Power of Habit, Charles Duhigg explains how to channel habits into powerful assets to improve our lives.

How can we use these lessons to improve our workday?

The key to a productive workday is to substitute much of our “conscious” hard work into subconscious or automated habits that are less taxing on our energy systems.

Habits, scientists say, emerge because the brain is constantly looking for ways to save effort. -The Power of Habit, Duhigg

What type of work should become an automatic routine? Any repetitive and predictable activity. Emails. Office organization. Regular reports. Mundane transactions. Anything that has low variability is a good candidate for a habit.

What should not become habit? Any task that has high unpredictability or complexity. Because of the inherent variation in these tasks, automation will often lead to incomplete action and the wrong outcome. For example, hiring is a complex process that takes significant deliberate thought. It should not be automatic given the consequences of a bad hire and the variation of prospective employees.

Conserving mental effort is tricky, because if our brains power down at the wrong moment, we might fail to notice something important, such as a predator hiding in the bushes or a speeding car as we pull onto the street. -The Power of Habit, Duhigg

As mentioned above, we can’t power down our brains in high impact situations. It’s up to us to separate our day into routine habits and deliberate action, and not mix the two.

#2 Take a Step Back Before Judging Other’s Behavior

How do you react when a colleague makes a mistake that seems indefensible? Do you assume the person is just plain stupid? Do you assume they don’t care? Do you blame their work ethic or attention to detail?

Executives determined that, in some ways, they had been thinking about willpower all wrong. Employees with willpower lapses, it turned out, had no difficulty doing their jobs most of the time. On the average day, a willpower-challenged worker was no different from anyone else. But sometimes, particularly when faced with unexpected stresses or uncertainties, those employees would snap and their self-control would evaporate. A customer might begin yelling, for instance, and a normally calm employee would lose her composure. An impatient crowd might overwhelm a barista, and suddenly he was on the edge of tears. -The Power of Habit, Duhigg

There is constant tension between the effects of our environment and our ability to influence and control those effects. When we see other’s behavior, we often attribute 100% of that behavior to the person and completely neglect the role of environment. Seldom do we let the person off the hook and blame the environment. It *seems* to make intuitive sense that we are in 100% in control of our actions. Numerous studies have rebuked that belief, but it still persists in managerial behavior.

When we make a mistake, we are likely to blame outside factors instead of looking inward at ourselves. And when something goes right, we often take all the credit and assume the environment had nothing to do with it. We accept all praise and deflect all blame. It’s hard to overcome.

But when dealing with colleagues, hold your initial impression since you likely underestimate the power of the situation.

#3 Use a Crisis to Shake Things Up

After Barack Obama’s election, Rahm Emanuel said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

You may not agree with his politics, but he had a powerful point.

All those leaders seized the possibilities created by a crisis. During turmoil, organizational habits become malleable enough to both assign responsibility and create a more equitable balance of power. Crises are so valuable, in fact, that sometimes it’s worth stirring up a sense of looming catastrophe rather than letting it die down. -The Power of Habit, Duhigg

Although a crisis is not a pleasant thing, many organizations waste the opportunity to improve their habits by learning from the crisis. The initial reaction is often hysteria and an ultra-short-term focus on the immediacy of the crisis, rather than improving long-term behavior.

Employees often follow the cues of their leaders. If leaders can’t separate the crisis from the learning, why should they expect employees to do the same? It takes a certain stoic mindset to compartmentalize the urgent crisis from the long-term lessons.

One a crisis has occurred, it’s a sunk cost and no amount of ruminating and stressing will undue the past. The best we can do is learn to modify our routines to ensure the same crisis doesn’t happen again.

#4 Corporate and Employee Behavior is Shaped by Social Convention

Your behavior mimics those around you.

Have you considered your behavior is significantly influenced by those around you? Do you believe you are 100% in control of your actions and habits?

…firms are guided by long-held organizational habits, patterns that often emerge from thousands of employees’ independent decisions. And these habits have more profound impacts than anyone previously understood. -The Power of Habit, Duhigg

It’s likely you have less control than you think. Unless you deliberately engage and understand your habits, you are bound to repeat the same patterns and actions. Your day to day activities are a consequence of the cues and expectations of those around you.

Many behaviors are not a result of deliberate thought but rather an evolving collection of haphazard and unexamined beliefs.

For example, companies often want employees to engage in deep thinking on breakthrough or revolutionary projects. However, they also expect constant and immediate email responses. Studies have shown that by interrupting deliberate effort, it takes 20-40 minutes to re-engage in deep learning.

While the company is hoping for one thing (deep thinking) they are getting something else (distracted workers handicapped by email). The actions of the company must match the words spoken by management. When there is conflict, the actions always win. 

If you want to change behavior, don’t expect more information to alter deep-seated organization behavior. It’s not an information problem. It’s a habit and expectations problem.

A movement starts because of the social habits of friendship and the strong ties between close acquaintances. It grows because of the habits of a community, and the weak ties that hold neighborhoods and clans together. And it endures because a movement’s leaders give participants new habits that create a fresh sense of identity and a feeling of ownership. Usually, only when all three parts of this process are fulfilled can a movement become self-propelling and reach a critical mass. -The Power of Habit, Duhigg

Your focus should first start with company-wide behavior, then re-train organization behavior with systematic training, and finally reinforce with social proof.

A movement starts because of the social habits of friendship and the strong ties between close acquaintances. It grows because of the habits of a community, and the weak ties that hold neighborhoods and clans together. And it endures because a movement’s leaders give participants new habits that create a fresh sense of identity and a feeling of ownership. Usually, only when all three parts of this process are fulfilled can a movement become self-propelling and reach a critical mass. There are other recipes for successful social change and hundreds of details that differ between eras and struggles. -The Power of Habit, Duhigg

To Summarize:

#1 Routine, not willpower, is the key to a successful workday – Quit trying to force your way through bad habits. Re-train and eliminate them instead.

#2 Take a step back before judging other’s behavior – Before rushing to judgment, step back and reflect on situational factors that have shaped people’s behavior.

#3 Use a crisis to shake things up – Rise above the day-to-day challenges of a crisis and learn to modify behaviors instead of ruminating on past mistakes.

#4 Corporate and employee behavior is shaped by social convention – Employee behavior is often shaped by social factors, not rules and logic. If you want to change behavior, alter social expectations.

 

Book Notes: Average is Over by Tyler Cowen

Overall rating: 6/10

General Thoughts:

"Average is Over" for most Americans. Tyler Cowen, author of the book, Average is Over, makes the case that people/workers will increasingly be separated into a small, hyper-valuable upper class and a growing, stagnant lower working class.

I took Tyler’s concepts and applied them to the likely readers of this article. If you think you are immune to competition because of your fancy degree or high paying position, you are slowly starting your demise.

Competition is unrelenting and those who sit around waiting for things to happen will be run over by technological change and better competition. Americans will continue to divide into two classes. But it's not just the wealthy vs. the poor; it’s the self-educated individuals vs. the passive class of Americans who expect the government, corporations, or their families to support and ensure their well-being. The quicker you accept the idea that it is your responsibility to educate yourself, the more likely you will thrive in the future. 

Worth reading?

It’s an interesting and motivational read if you are new to the idea of the hyper-competitive labor market. Cowen makes a compelling case why it’s only going to get tougher for workers, not easier. If you need to get motivated, read the book.

If you already understand this, there isn’t much help you direct what you should be doing to compete. He leaves just vague notions of building new skills and leveraging technological and marketing skills for the future. It would be nice to have an actual roadmap of how to do that, but wasn’t necessarily part of his goal for this book.

This article explores 5 ways to rethink your career position and inspire you to go on the offensive by creating rare and valuable skillsets.

My Kindle Notes (some notes may be cut off/incomplete)

This imbalance in technological growth will have some surprising implications. For instance, workers more and more will come to be classified into two categories. The key questions will be: Are you good at working with intelligent machines or not? Are your skills a complement to the skills of the computer, or is the computer doing better without you? Worst of all, are you competing against the computer? Are computers helping people in China and India compete against you? 76

To put the question in the bluntest possible way, let’s say that machine intelligence helps us make a lot more things more cheaply, as indeed it is doing. Where will most of the benefits go? In accord with economic reasoning, they will go to that which is scarce. In today’s global economy here is what is scarce: 1. Quality land and natural resources 2. Intellectual property, or good ideas about what should be produced 3. Quality labor with unique skills 248

Here is what is not scarce these days: 1. Unskilled labor, as more countries join the global economy 2. Money in the bank or held in government securities, which you can think of as simple capital, not attached to any special ownership rights (we know there is a lot of it because it has been earning zero or negative real rates of return) 252

will be the humans who are adept at working with computers and with related devices for communications and information processing. If a laborer can augment the value of a major tech improvement by even a small bit, she will likely earn well. That means humans with strong math and analytic skills, humans who are comfortable working with computers because they understand their operation, and humans who intuitively grasp how computers can be used for marketing and for other non-techie tasks. 268

Does anyone envy the job prospects of a typical newly minted astronomy PhD? On the other hand, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook fame was a psychology major, and insights from psychology helped him make Facebook into a more appealing and alluring site. The ability to mix technical knowledge with solving real-world problems is the key, not sheer number-crunching or programming for its own sake. Number-crunching skills will be turned over to the machines sooner or later. 276

Despite all the talk about STEM fields, I see marketing as the seminal sector for our future economy. 280

Nonetheless, masseuses increasingly market themselves on Google and the internet. These masseuses fit the basic model that favors people who can blend computer expertise with an understanding of how to communicate with other people. Again, it is about blending the cognitive strengths of humans and computers. 284

It sounds a little silly, but making high earners feel better in just about every part of their lives will be a major source of job growth in the future. At some point it is hard to sell more physical stuff to high earners, yet there is usually just a bit more room to make them feel better. Better about the world. Better about themselves. Better about what they have achieved. 293

The more that earnings rise at the upper end of the distribution, the more competition there will be for the attention of the high earners and thus the greater the importance of marketing. 297

But don’t just focus on those computers; it’s also about management. The CEOs and higher-level managers are paid handsomely to assemble and direct the individuals who work every day with mechanized intelligent analysis. If you have an unusual ability to spot, recruit, and direct those who work well with computers, even if you don’t work well with computers yourself, the contemporary world will make you rich. If we look at the increase in the share of income going to the top tenth of a percent from 1979 to 2005, executives, managers, supervisors, and financial professionals captured 70 percent of those gains. Another development is this: The better the world is at measuring value, the more demanding a lot of career paths will become. That is why I say “Welcome to the hyper-meritocracy” with a touch of irony. Firms and employers and monitors will be able to measure economic value with a sometimes oppressive precision. 321

In any case, the slacker twenty-two-year-old with a BA in English, even from a good school, no longer has such a clear path to an upper-middle-class lifestyle. At the same time, Facebook, Google, and Zynga are now so desperate for talent that they will buy out other companies, not for their products, but rather to keep their employees. It’s easier and cheaper to buy the companies than to try to replicate their recruiting or lure away their best employees. Often the purchased product lines are abandoned. A recent report laid out how these acquisitions work: “‘Engineers are worth half a million to one million,’ said Vaughan Smith, Facebook’s VP of corporate development, who has helped negotiate many of the 20 or so talent acquisitions made by Facebook in the last four years.” The technology blogs call this being “acqhired,” and this practice is being ramped up in what is otherwise a slow job market. It’s not slow for those who work with the intelligent machines. 337

Let’s draw up a simple list of some important characteristics in technologically advanced modern workplaces: 1. Exactness of execution becomes more important relative to an accumulated mass of brute force. 2. Consistent coordination over time is a significant advantage. 414

3. Morale is extremely important to motivate production and cooperation. 417

The days of a lone worker in the field pushing a hoe are over, at least as a way to feed families. Think of the public works projects of the 1930s, such as paving a road. A healthy worker always can add some brute force to the endeavor, for instance by carrying bricks from one place to another on the construction site. The workers don’t have to be brilliant—they require only a minimum of training—and while conscientiousness plays a role, the monitoring and enforcement problems are relatively straightforward, as the workers either carry the bricks or they do not. 421

You might think it’s only Google and a few elite firms moving in this direction—meet a certain grade or you are out—but the practice is spreading to many corners of the job market. For instance, it’s now common that a fire chief has to have a master’s degree. That may sound silly and perhaps you think a master’s degree has not very much to do with putting out fires. Still, often it is desired that a firefighter be trained in emergency medical services, anti-terrorism practices, and fire science (for instance, putting out industrial fires), and there is a demand for firemen who, as they move into leadership roles, can do public speaking, interact with the community, and write grant proposals. A master’s degree is no guarantee of skill in these areas, but suddenly the new requirements don’t sound so crazy anymore. 469

We have been seeing what is called “labor market polarization,” a concept that is most closely identified with MIT labor economist David Autor. Labor market polarization means that workers are, to an increasing degree, falling into two camps. They either do very well in labor markets or they don’t do well at all. It’s hardly the case that America has lost its middle class as of 2013, and I would urge you to stay away from some exaggerated accounts of the middle class having been “decimated,” but looking toward the future the trend is clear: The middle of the distribution is thinning out and this process appears to have a long ways to run. And to be blunt—while I know I can’t prove this—I wonder how much of the middle class consists of people in government or protected service-sector jobs who don’t actually produce nearly as much as their pay. 477

It’s clear: The world is demanding more in the way of credentials, more in the way of ability, and it is passing along most of the higher rewards to a relatively small cognitive elite. After all, the first two categories of earnings winners—namely those with advanced degrees—account for only about 3 percent of the US population. 511

As a general rule, the age structure of achievement is being ratcheted upward due to specialization and the growth of knowledge. Mathematicians used to prove theorems at age twenty, but now it happens at age thirty because there is so much more to learn along the way. If you are a talented twenty-two-year-old, just out of Harvard, you probably cannot walk into a furniture factory and quickly design a better machine. Young people have made fundamental contributions in some of the internet and social networking sectors, precisely because of the immaturity of those sectors. Mark Zuckerberg needed a good grasp of Myspace, but he didn’t have to master decades of previous efforts on online social networks. He was close to starting from scratch. In those cases, young people tend to dominate the sector, but of course that won’t cover the furniture factory. 526

It often sounds like meaningless or bogus clichés to outsiders, but very often the people in the field do not get it or do not think very conceptually about their own operations. It’s not in their training, and in the meantime they have become hyperspecialized in some very particular daily routines, such as mastering how a factory for producing furniture should be run. Every now and then these questions, rooted in general intelligence, pay off and generate a high expected return. The ever so popular management books, which can seem so banal to outside observers, are also attempting to supply critical outside general intelligence. It’s a hard set of conceptual skills to communicate and then turn into practice, and thus the demand for consultants—including young consultants—won’t be disappearing anytime soon. The flow of business and management books will probably never end. 548

But for men, from 1969 to 2009, as measured, it appears that wages for the typical or median male earner have fallen by about 28 percent. I’ve seen attempts to dispute these numbers, but the result remains embarrassing; Brookings Institution researcher Scott Winship, for instance, argues that since 1969 the truth is that male wages have fallen by “only” 9 percent. That’s still a dismal record. Imagine yourself as an economist back in 1969, being asked to predict the course of American male wages over the next forty years or so. You are told that no major asteroid will strike the earth and that there will be no nuclear war. The riots of the 1960s will die out rather than consuming our country in flames. Communism would go away as a major threat and most of the world would reject socialism. Who would have thought that wages for the typical guy were going to fall? It’s a stunning truth. 651

So what happens to laid-off workers, at least those who are still capable of working and willing to work? Whether we like it or not, many of them need to find lower-paying jobs. There are plenty of lower-paying jobs in the world, more than ever before, but here are the rather significant catches: 1. A lot of those jobs are being created overseas. If the job does not require high and complex capital investment, the advantage to keeping that job in the United States is lower. 2. A lot of Americans are not ready to take such jobs, either financially or psychologically. They have been conditioned to expect “jobs in the middle,” precisely the area that is falling away. 3. Through law and regulation, the United States is increasing the cost of hiring, whether it be mandated health benefits, risk of lawsuits, or higher minimum wages. 728

Among the young there is a growing tendency to postpone adulthood, in part because lucrative job opportunities do not beckon. The new crowd of youngsters is sometimes called “Generation Limbo.” They end up living at home for longer, they take freelance and part-time service work—such as in bars or bookstores—or they write part-time for websites. It is less likely that their first or even second jobs will count as potential “careers.” I do not presume the limbo generation consists entirely or even mostly of unhappy individuals. They have freedoms and flexibilities that older generations might have envied, and they have the chance to spend lots of time with friends and family. Sex and parties and good ethnic food seem to be everywhere, if Facebook is any kind of guide. Still, the longer-run job prospects for many of this crop of twentysomethings may not turn out to be so great. 773

Rajlich stresses that humans blunder constantly, that it is hard to be objective, hard to keep concentrating, and hard to calculate a large number of variations with exactness. He is not talking here about the club patzer but rather the top grandmasters: “I am surprised how far they are from perfection.” In earlier times these grandmasters had a kind of aura about them among the chess-viewing public, but in the days of the programs the top grandmasters now command less respect. 1229

At the cognitive level, this unexpected depth is also a disturbing result. It shows that we humans—even at the highest levels of intellect and competition—like to oversimplify matters. We boil things down to our “intuitions” too much. We like pat answers and we take too much care to avoid intellectual chaos. Even if you don’t think those flaws apply to everybody, they seem to apply to some of the most intelligent and analytic people in the human race, especially good chess players. 1291

What does all this mean for our decisions, especially in the workplace? 1. Human strengths and weaknesses are surprisingly regular and predictable. 2. Be skeptical of the elegant and intuitive theory. 3. It’s harder to get outside your own head than you think. 4. Revel in messiness. 5. We can learn. 1295

We see a bias toward regularized systems, rather than ideal systems, in the rise of the Kalashnikov AK-47, the world’s most popular gun. It is not the technologically most advanced weapon, nor the most powerful, but it is easy to shoot, reload, and also fix. Sadly, you can give one to a child and have a working weapon rather quickly (as happens all too often during civil wars around the globe). Microsoft Word, in similar fashion, has succeeded because of ease of use and interchangeability, not because highly informed experts think it is the best software possible. 1383

The Google crutch, if I may call it that, influences how we think and how we learn. There’s now good systematic evidence about how Google changes our mental capacities, and I think most of us have experienced this personally as well. When people use Google more, they lose some of their ability—or at least willingness—to remember facts. After all, why should you keep track of all that stuff? If it is a factual question, the answer probably is right at your fingertips, especially with smart phones and iPads. In similar fashion, it seems that people who manage accounts became less skilled at some memory functions once they obtained cheap paper, writing instruments, accounting books, and other means of keeping track of figures. 1809

The ancient arts of memory, in their most general form, are techniques to improve your mind. These arts were not just about memorization and many of their advocates drew an explicit distinction between the memory arts and memorization. The memory arts were about learning how to order ideas in new ways, and thus the memory arts were a path to composition and innovation and the generation of novelty. It was about taking older and simpler parts and from those parts making new things, be they hymns, poems, prayers, books, or a new appreciation of the wonders of God. 1819

Two different effects are operating here, but we can tease them apart for a look at where humanity is headed. On one hand, many successful individuals will learn how to think like smart machines, or at least enough to understand their operation, in order to become wealthy, high-status earners. In that way we will become more like computers—well, a large number of high earners will become more like computers anyway, cognitively speaking. That said, when it comes to our private lives, we will become less like computers, because we rely on computers for many basic functions, such as recording numbers, helping us with arithmetic, and remembering facts through internet search. In these ways we will become more intuitive, more attuned to the psychology and emotions of everyday life, and more spontaneously creative. 1848

Looking back, we have seen a great stagnation of wages in the United States since about 1973. Given that this book offers a view of how that era of stagnation is going to evolve into a new chapter in our nation’s history, it is worth addressing how much of the stagnant wage trend in the United States was or might remain due to foreign competition. 1901

Should we blame the foreigners for our difficulties? And how will foreign competition shape jobs and wages going forward? Many economists are skeptical of arguments that lay the blame for our weak job market on foreign trade. The notion that foreign competition causes low wages and unemployment has been around for centuries. Yet foreign competition continues to grow, and for the most part, at least until recently, wages have continued to rise. Furthermore, there are plenty of highly open, high-trade economies with employment success stories, most notably Switzerland, which at the end of 2011 had an unemployment rate of only 3.1 percent. Sweden’s story is broadly similar. 1903

Economists have been investigating the claim that foreign competition destroys jobs for a long time. It remains difficult to substantiate that claim. It is easy to throw around charges that American workers now have to compete with billions of new workers, many from formerly Communist or Socialist countries, yet most of those billions are not serious competitors, most of all because they have very low productivity. 1908

The most detailed study of labor’s falling share in output finds that new information and communications technologies—which can substitute for labor—play a larger role in compensation shifts than does foreign trade. 1913

It’s also hard to find serious evidence that immigration has hurt American wages in a significant way. Harvard professor George Borjas, a leading critic of our current immigration policies, has presented evidence that immigrants have lowered the wages of high school dropouts, in the long run, by 4.8 percent. But the wages of many other Americans have risen, and some major groups, such as the college educated, have suffered a long-run loss of 0.5 percent in wages, which is close to no effect at all. And that’s what the major immigration critic finds. 1915

What about exporting work to workers outside the United States? Some of my economist friends will hate this: It is increasingly hard to deny that outsourcing is playing some role in stagnant American wages and slow job creation. 1926

It’s simple. Hiring someone is an investment. If some jobs are becoming “higher investment value” while others are becoming “lower investment value,” entrepreneurs and their companies will put the lower investment value jobs in cheaper, lower-wage countries. Some of those jobs will stay in the United States, but only by paying lower wages than would otherwise be the case. 1927

During these periods of prosperity we were world leaders in education—K–12 and university. There was a closer match between the skills required of workers at higher levels of the value chain and the skills that American workers actually possessed. Nowadays, the demands of machinery—including of course computers—are rising at a faster rate than are human capabilities. The machines are getting better education, more rapidly and more cheaply, than are their human teammates and potential teammates. That’s the root of the problem for a lot of workers. 1987

What we see happening is that individuals with college degrees are gravitating to areas where a relatively high percentage of the other individuals also have college degrees. Some of the winning areas are Raleigh, North Carolina, San Francisco, and Stamford, Connecticut, where over 40 percent of the adult residents have college degrees. You can add select areas of New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles to this list, although those cities as a whole do not show uniform progress in recruiting educated individuals. Some of the loser cities include Bakersfield, California, and Youngstown, Ohio, where the percentage of educated adults is less than one-fifth. It should come as no surprise that the cities with high levels of education tend to have much lower levels of unemployment. We see also that in terms of per capita income, the poorer regions of the United States are no longer catching up to the wealthier regions. 2035

It is worth considering a little more exactly the new ways in which distance does and does not matter. Because of the internet and Amazon, among other developments, it is easier to become self-educated in many more different parts of the world. It is also easier to have a “good enough” or low budget (but happy) life in many more different parts of the world, again because of technology. But if you wish to be a high earner, learning from other well-educated people, geographic proximity is growing in importance, whether in companies or in leading amenities-rich cities or most likely in both. 2050

We as a nation have been thinking about education without knowing what we really want from it. Do we want well-rounded young adults to emerge? Or good citizens? Role models? These goals seem reasonable but what do they mean? For the purposes of this chapter, and indeed this book, I’ll keep the goal simple. One goal of better education is to procure better earnings. How we might achieve that is the question. 2112

Online education is one place where the new information technologies are emerging. For instance, millions of people are taking MOOCs (massive open online courses) or using the free instructional videos from Khan Academy on mathematics and other topics. Circa 2013, no one is surprised when a new foreign aid program consists simply of dropping iPads into rural Ethiopia and letting children figure out how to work them. 2124

Online education is expanding beyond its niche status, but sometimes we don’t recognize the most important developments as explicit education. In my own field of economics, what is the most common and regular form of contact the general public has with economic reasoning? It’s no longer the Econ 101 class but rather it is economics blogs, which are read by hundreds of thousands of people every day. I submit that “cross-blog dialogue,” as I call it, is for many people a better way of learning than boring lectures, PowerPoints, and dry, overly homogenized, designed-not-to-offend-anybody textbooks. Schools are supposed to be proper and politically correct, but sometimes the point really sticks when Paul Krugman calls someone an idiot on his popular blog and explains why—whether or not you agree with Krugman or the (supposed) idiot. Blogs have to get people to care because it is a very competitive environment. The competition is to capture anyone’s attention. 2127

It’s not just formal online education and blogs. Apps, TED lectures on YouTube, Twitter, reading Wikipedia, or just learning how to work and set up your iPad are all manifestations of this new world of competitive education, based on interaction with machine intelligence. These new methods of learning are all based on the principles of time-shifting (watch and listen when you want), user control, direct feedback, the construction of online communities, and the packaging of information into much smaller bits than the traditional lecture or textbook chapter. 2133

Online education is even growing as a supplement to K–12 or in some cases as a replacement altogether. As of late 2011, about 250,000 K–12 students are enrolled in full-time virtual schools. Over two million K–12 students take at least one class online. At these online schools, the degree of contact with flesh-and-blood teachers varies. Instructors might answer questions by email, phone, or videoconference, supplemented by periodic meetings, class trips, and “live,” in-the-classroom exams. It’s often for less than half the price of a traditional K–12 schooling experience. 2139

The first is that online education will be extremely cheap. Once an online course is created, additional students can be handled at relatively low cost, often close to zero cost. (We can even look forward to the day where essay questions are graded by artificial intelligence, and indeed some examples of this already are succeeding.) Over time, competitive pressures will operate to push price down close to costs. That’s not quite the world we have today, because setup costs for the classes remain a burden and most good colleges and universities have radically incomplete online offerings. It is also true that getting official accreditation for these courses is far from easy. 2151

Fourth, online education also allows for a much more precise measurement of learning. Consider the Khan Academy and its online videos. They are already measuring which videos lead to the best performance on quiz scores, which videos have to be watched more than once, at which point in the videos individuals stop for pause and replay, and so on. We are creating a treasure trove of information about actual learning, and we are just beginning to mine this data. 2183

If a student is falling behind, or in denial about his or her progress in the course, the software is the first to know. We’re about to apply “Big Data” to the students themselves, and man and machine will work together to improve significantly the quality of education. In a slightly more distant future, we can imagine the computers hooked up to bodily sensors of pulse and scans of facial movements, perhaps to determine if the student is bored, distracted, or simply not understanding the material. 2186

For all the successes of games, however, they also point out some limitations of education by computer, at least how we currently practice it. Education into the world of games works remarkably well, but it works mainly for people who wish to learn the games. Chess-playing computers don’t boost the play of diffident students who refuse to spend much time with the machine. For people who aren’t already motivated, or on the verge of picking up a new fascination, nothing about the game is all that enticing or seductive. 2214

Sometimes a student may care about doing well with grades but not about mastering the actual material and moving on to the next step. Chess teacher Peter Snow reports that some of his young students love playing against the computer, but they deliberately put the quality settings on the program so low that they can beat it many times in a row. At this point they should raise the skill level of the program to make the challenge tougher, but they don’t always want to do so. Similarly, studies of spelling bees show that the winning spellers are those who not only work hard, but who engage in disciplined forms of study that do not always yield immediate positive feedback. 2217

The superstars will reach higher and more dramatic peaks, and at earlier ages. Magnus Carlsen is, as I write, the highest rated player in the world and arguably the most impressive chess prodigy of all time, having attained grandmaster status at thirteen and world number one status at age nineteen, the latter a record. He is from Tønsberg, in southern Norway, and prior to the computer age Norway has no record of producing top chess players at all. Even Oslo (Carlsen now lives on its outskirts) is a relatively small metropolitan area of fewer than 1.5 million people. Carlsen, of course, had the chance to play chess over the internet. 2233

Again, we see some analogous results popping up in online education. When Sebastian Thrun, then of Stanford, taught his artificial intelligence course online, the best performers were not the students from Stanford. Generally the best performers were the students abroad, often from poor countries and very often from India. All of a sudden these individuals had a chance to outperform the US domestic elites. It is no surprise that recent speculation has centered on whether tech employers and other companies might use online courses as a new way to recruit talent. 2244

Online education can thus be extremely egalitarian, but it is egalitarian in a funny way. It can catapult the smart, motivated, but nonelite individuals over the members of elite communities. It does not, however, push the uninterested student to the head of the pack. Here is yet another way in which the idea of a hyper-meritocracy will apply to our future. 2248

It remains to be seen whether online education will spread with equal rapidity but most likely it will not. One major problem is simply that universities are for the most part bureaucracies. Faculty often fear online education because they sense it will either put them out of a job, lower their status and importance, or force them to learn fundamentally new methods of teaching, none of which sound like pleasant prospects, especially for a class of individuals used to holding protected jobs that involve a certain amount of autonomy and indeed coddling. 2259

It will become increasingly apparent how much of current education is driven by human weakness, namely the inability of most students to simply sit down and try to learn something on their own. It’s a common claim that you can’t replace professors with Nobel-quality YouTube lectures because the professor, and perhaps also the classroom setting, is required to motivate most of the students. Fair enough, but let’s take this seriously. The professor is then a motivator first and foremost. Let’s hire good motivators. Let’s teach our professors how to motivate. Let’s judge them on that basis. Let’s treat professors more like athletics coaches, personal therapists, and preachers, because that is what they will evolve to be. 2337

As it currently stands, we are losing track of a college education’s real comparative advantage. This was an acceptable bargain when the wages of educators and administrators were low, and government budgets had more slack, but it’s becoming increasingly expensive. 2348

We like to pretend our instructors teach as well as chess computers, but too often they don’t come close to that ideal. They are something far less noble, something that we are afraid to call by its real name, something quite ordinary: They are a mix of exemplars and nags and missionaries, packaged with a marketing model that stresses their nobility and a financial model that pays them pretty well and surrounds them with administrators. It’s no wonder that this very human enterprise doesn’t always work so well. 2350

What does the resulting model of education look like? The better-performing students will be treated much as chess prodigies are today. They will be given computer programs to play with, with periodic human contact for guidance, feedback, and upgrades to new and better programs. They will cooperate with each other toward the end of greater mastery of their subject areas. Their conscientiousness, and the understanding that high wages await them in the world, will enforce hard work and discipline. 2357

The lesser-performing students will specialize in receiving motivation. Education, for them, will become more like the Marines, full of discipline and team spirit. Not everyone will adopt the so-called “tiger mother” or Asian parenting style, but its benefits will become more obvious. A lot of softer parents will hire schools and tutors to do this for them. The strict English boarding school style of the nineteenth century will, in some form or another, make a comeback. If your eleven-year-old is not getting with the program, you will consider sending him away to the hardworking, whip-cracking Boot Camp for Future Actuaries. 2361

When a person is not doing what he or she is supposed to be doing, someone has to deliver that message in just the right way. Show up on time! Don’t shop online at your desk! Sell more of our products! Listen more closely to our customers! It is a complicated communication because you are both making the person feel bad about what they have been doing and getting them willing to achieve better results. Expert coaching or motivating will be a competitive growth sector for jobs. 2396

And just as conscientiousness will become a more important quality in labor markets, so will teaching and instilling conscientiousness become more important in the economy as a whole, a theme outlined by Daniel Akst in his brilliant yet neglected 2011 book We Have Met the Enemy: Self-Control in an Age of Excess. A lot of new jobs will be coming in the area of motivation. These jobs will require some very serious skills, but again they won’t primarily be skills of a high tech nature or skills that are taught very well by our current colleges and universities. And again, these high expertise coaching jobs won’t be shipped overseas. 2399

High-skilled performers, including business executives, will have some kind of coach. There will be too much value at stake to let high performers operate without a steady stream of external advice, even if that advice has to be applied rather subtly. Top doctors will have a coach, just as today’s top tennis players (and some of the mediocre ones) all have coaches. Today the coach of a CEO is very often the spouse, the personal assistant, or even a subordinate, or sometimes a member of the board of directors. Coaching is already remarkably important in our economy, and the high productivity of top earners will cause it to become essential. 2403

At various career steps, individuals who work with genius machines will need to retrain and learn new systems. Some will opt for self-education, supplemented by programs and some human guidance, much like the chess prodigies. Those who are less self-motivated will subject themselves to extreme forms of discipline for short periods of time, to learn a new set of skills. And others will retreat into the world of what I have called threshold earners, just trying to get by. 2409

Larry Kaufman, who developed the evaluation function for the Rybka program, and who is the mastermind of the Komodo program, graduated from MIT with an undergraduate degree in economics in 1968. He went to work on Wall Street as a broker and soon started developing his own form of options-pricing theory, working independently of Fischer Black and Myron Scholes; Scholes later won a Nobel Prize for that contribution. Kaufman’s theory was based on ideas of Brownian motion and the logistic function, the latter of which he took from formulas for calculating chess ratings. In the 1970s he made money by applying his options-pricing work through a trading firm and stopped when the profits went away, and he has since dedicated his life to chess and computer chess, including his work on Rybka and Komodo. He lives in a fine house in one of the nicest parts of suburban Maryland, with his beautiful wife and young daughter. Again, we see the mix of a moderate level of elite education combined with extreme self-education over many years. 2416

In his midsixties, Kaufman is still making pioneering contributions to the theory and practice of intelligent machines. He and Nelson Hernandez are good examples of the kind of skills that will win out in the future. Above all else, they are masters of reeducation. 2423

Science is a general framework for making predictions, controlling our environment, and understanding our world. 2430

We should not, however, take that state of knowledge as fixed. I’m not talking about a decline in literacy here—science itself is, in many areas, moving beyond the frontiers of ready intelligibility. For at least three reasons, a lot of science will become harder to understand: 2438

1. In some (not all) scientific areas, problems are becoming more complex and unsusceptible to simple, intuitive, big breakthroughs. 2. The individual scientific contribution is becoming more specialized, a trend that has been running for centuries and is unlikely to stop. 3. One day soon, intelligent machines will become formidable researchers in their own right. 2440

Specialization As science progresses, each new marginal discovery is more the result of specialization and less the result of general breakthroughs, compared to earlier times. There probably won’t be another Isaac Newton, Adam Smith, or Euclid, because the most fundamental contributions in those fields have already been made. 2445

The major inventions behind the Industrial Revolution, for instance, were often driven by amateurs. That’s become a lot harder because there is so much knowledge to master in the mature fields. It can take ten years of study or more to get to the frontier of a lot of areas, and by the time you get there, and figure out something new, your contribution is a marginal one or maybe a little out-of-date. The frontier moved on while you were trying to master it. 2470

Even if you succeed, you’ll understand why your tweak is better than the way things used to be done, but your understanding of the new device as a whole may be rudimentary or even incorrect, because you relied so much upon the underlying knowledge of others. 2473

For more general writings on conscientiousness, see Brent W. Roberts, Carl Lejuez, Robert F. Krueger, Jessica M. Richards, and Patrick L. Hill, “What Is Conscientiousness and How Can It Be Assessed?”, Developmental Psychology, 3171

also Angela L. Duckworth, David Weir, Eli Tsukayama, and David Kwok, “Who Does Well in Life? Conscientious Adults Excel in Both Objective and Subjective Success,” Frontiers in Personality Science and Individual Differences, online first publication, September 28, 2012. 3173

On fire chiefs and master’s degrees, see Paul Fain, “Advanced Degrees for Fire Chiefs,” Inside Higher Ed, October 27, 2011, http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/10/27 /college-degrees-increasingly-help-firefighters-get-ahead#ixzz1f0qkakYi. On rising degree requirements more generally, see Catherine Rampell, “Degree Inflation? Jobs that Newly Require B.A.’s,” The New York Times Economix blog, December 4, 2012. 3185

For a general look at the cognitive abilities of chess players, see Fernand Gobet and Neil Charness, “Expertise in Chess,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, edited by K. Anders Ericsson, Neil Charness, Paul J. Feltovich, and Robert R. Hoffman (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006): 523–38. 3297

On spelling bees, see Angela Lee Duckworth, Teri A. Kirby, Eli Tsukayama, Heather Berstein, and K. Anders Ericsson, “Deliberate Practice Spells Success: Why Grittier Competitors Triumph at the National Spelling Bee,” Social Psychological and Personality Science, published online October 4, 2010, doi: 10.1177/1948550610385872. 3407

Why Possession of Knowledge Does Not Equal Expertise How it Blocks Our Personal Growth

 “Mere possession of knowledge is not enough for expertise. It is also critical for knowledge to be organized so that it can be activated and used in different contexts. Others emphasize flexible application of knowledge in new situations…Research on human performance shows that calling to mind knowledge is a significant cognitive process.”

– From Perspectives on Human Error: Hindsight Biases and Local Rationality, Woods and Cook

A collection of facts is not enough.

As Charlie Munger stated, “You can’t just memorize and bang out facts – they need to be in a latticework of mental models.”

This is the opposite approach of how you studied in undergrad or high school. You probably crammed your way through school. Unfortunately, cramming doesn’t work long-term.

What’s the alternative to cramming random facts in your head? Building a latticework structure in your mind to organize information in a logical and coherent system.

When you encounter certain problems, you must correctly interpret the situation and trigger the right information from your memory. This process will select the right model or framework to solve the problem. It’s like a flowchart. You follow the path based on your observation and interpretation of the problem. Because your training has created applicable models of real-world concepts, you simply follow the logical path to the correct solution.

It is not, and cannot be, a random collection of facts. The reason why is due to framing.

Framing is an important concept. Experts understand how the same problem will occur in different frames. Frames are simply different ways of presenting the same problem by changing the environment or situational context. As they progress through training, experts are aware that overconfidence can set in because they predict where standard questions are heading. However, the future will throw curveballs and almost imperceptible changes if experts don’t understand the problem’s frame. Misunderstanding the frame leads them to recall the wrong set of facts.

When we confuse knowledge with expertise, we lack the ability to recall knowledge and apply it to novel and unique situations. These situations have the same underlying problem yet occur in a different environment. If we are overly focused on memorizing specific facts without understanding the principles, we only build knowledge that is useful in one frame or dimension. We need to turn information gathering into applied wisdom.

Wisdom is Applied Knowledge

You are not a hard drive – seek wisdom instead of facts.

It’s important to emphasize two things.

First, we have the tendency to overvalue low-value, quantifiable facts over systems or principal-based learning. We want to crank out facts immediately rather than learn adaptable long-term principles.

You achieve this by focusing on the quality of your preparation, not the quantity. Don’t become obsessed with adding quick facts. Focus on the how the facts align into principles. Quantity will come naturally, but it will not be valuable if the knowledge foundation is a collection of random ideas. Once quality is firmly established, add quantity. Then, each additional knowledge block is reinforcing the connections in your brain, because you took the time to create a system to organize and apply new ideas.

Second, your brain is not a hard drive. You don’t get smarter by packing in more random facts about the world. This really only works for your short-term memory. In fact, most of us, including myself, packed our short-term memory during college as we studied for exams. We did this because we could and we didn’t know any better. We could get away with it. We got the grade we wanted, but left most of the long-term wisdom behind us.

This won’t work if you are striving to build exceptional skills and it’s a crappy way to go through life. There is a much better way to create long-term wisdom– and this idea gives you the framework to supercharge your time and effort, by consciously focusing and meticulously reorienting towards principal-based learning, not data gathering.

Wisdom is not the same thing as information. Wisdom is information + experience + context, and only a human can do that. Wisdom is information you can actually use. Here’s a better example of the difference between information and wisdom, an example Richard Feynman liked to use: The “name” of a thing is not the thing. Feynman’s dad taught him the name of a bird they saw (brown-throated thrush) in every language he knew. That’s just information. The wisdom came when he pointed out that you could know every name of that bird in every language but still know nothing about the bird itself. -Tucker Max

 

Dangerous Protest Threatens Harvard's Endowment

Just when the pressures on university endowments seem to abate, another misguided attempt to use endowments as a political weapon falls on Harvard. According to The Harvard Crimson and an article by Bloomberg’s John Lauerman, Hollywood stars, current students, and other activists are demanding Harvard’s endowment divest its holdings of fossil fuel investments. Protesters assert divesting will cut the use of fossil fuels and increase the use of alternative energy. How that would actually work is where the logic gets fuzzy. It’s a shame such a highly regarded institution can produce graduates who support such a misguided stunt. The protest lacks any coherent reasoning, threatens the objectivity of the endowment's staff, and paralyzes the investment decision making necessary for long-term success. Divestments are endemic of a trend to use headline-grabbing exploits instead of engaging in real constructive change.

No real effects...

Divestment of energy related investments have no negative effects on the companies. Managements are not going to change their corporate strategy and mission. Energy companies have dealt with critics for decades! Divesting simply sells the stakes to some other buyer. In the end, there is no real change in any of these transactions. The companies don’t lose any funding! Buyers and sellers trade all day without the company caring. It’s simply a smokescreen to persuade the unsuspecting Harvard community that something is being done. If protestors want to change something, how about producing some real innovation in the energy space that can help shift away from fossil fuels? Divestment tactics are a distracting and meaningless attempt to convince the public that change is occurring.

Invert, always invert...

In fact, protestors actually have it backwards! If they want to induce change, they should advocate increasing the stakes in fossil fuel companies! Higher ownership stakes enables shareholders to voice their opinions through proxy voting in favor of better environmental policies. It allows shareholders to confront company management and engage in real, substantive dialogue. Divestment accomplishes the opposite. It removes any chance to enable change by passing that responsibility onto someone else. Of course, I doubt protesters actually want to put that much work into this; it’s much easier to organize a sit-in!

Dangerous precedent...

Endowments are already under tremendous pressure from university leadership, faculty, and students to deliver above average investment returns to fund the facilities, professors, and students that make Harvard so great. What endowments don’t need are another set of backhanded and dubious mandates that distract investment staff from their real jobs. Harvard’s investment staff has one goal: to ensure the continued growth of the endowment, not to become a pawn in a political and environmental campaign.

As a former portfolio manager at a pension fund, I can felt the challenges of navigating the financial markets before dealing with interference by outside protesters. Pet projects like divestments undermine the investment process that Harvard has successfully built over the previous decades. Investment staff now have to consider if investments made today will someday be examined under a microscope, leading to second guessing the real mission of the endowment. The real victim in this divestment push is not the actual companies; it’s the students and alumni of Harvard who will realize fewer benefits and be asked to shoulder a higher burden for the university.

If protesters want curb the use of fossil fuels, they should start supporting alternative energy projects or fund their own energy startup. Unfortunately, they might find that real change requires hard work and deep commitment, not occupying a university building.

3 Ideas to Implement Today from Buffet's Annual Letter

Warren Buffet’s annual letters are usually packed with interesting insights, but for the past couple years I had been a little underwhelmed by his thoughts. This year’s letter was the exception. As I read the letter for the second time, I realized Buffet laid out exactly how an investor should construct an investment portfolio and evaluate businesses. Although investors won’t find actual recommendations, he delivers something more valuable: a framework for selecting and analyzing businesses that any serious investor can follow. If these lessons make sense to you, you will want to read the entire letter here.

It’s ironic that the lessons seem logical and obvious as he describes them, yet 90% of investors (both individual and institutional) will completely fail at following half of his advice. We can attribute that to attention spans of zero and the general get rich quick mentality. If investors can avoid those handicaps, this year’s letter was a real goldmine for investors who are looking for a sensible way to think about investing.

Although he gives his secrets away for free every year, implementation is always the hard part! I picked out a few of the best and most practical insights that you, the investor, need to follow. By shamelessly stealing Warren’s investment principles, you will be 95% of the way to an effective investment portfolio. Now, the lessons…

One: Businesses > Treasuries

Warren wasted no time describing the tremendous outperformance of U.S. businesses over US dollar denominated bonds over the past half century. As most investors flock to “safe” U.S. treasuries, Warren’s extols the impressive track record of owning American businesses over long time periods. The common perception that stocks are risky and bonds safe is completely discredited by the long term data. Of course, this is no absolute guarantee this will repeat in the future. But consider what you would rather own for the next 30 years: a sensibly priced business that can compound value at 10-15% per year or a 30 year treasury delivering 2.7%?

Investing should be thought of as buying businesses, not trading stocks. Buffet has slowly and methodically built his portfolio of great businesses without the manic-depressive emotions that occupy most investors. Your portfolio should be structured the same way. If you have the time and aptitude to evaluate businesses, wait until they go on sale, and then start building your portfolio.

Two: What Matters Most: Durable, Competitive Advantages

Buffet highlights one the best but most forgotten elements of investing. Warren and Charlie own businesses with durable competitive advantages that can compound value over time without needing excessive capital investment. Notice how he didn’t mention fast growth, growing market share, exciting technology, or world-changing products. He distills a great business into one line.

But how quickly do most investors forget what really matters! 99% of investing conversations revolve around superficial topics that are heavy in excitement but rarely touch on the elements of investment success. Do your investments satisfy this simple test? This idea is powerful because 1) it's free and 2) most investors won’t use it! Resist the urge to fool yourself into thinking you can ignore this advice and “beat the market”. Your portfolio will thank you.

Three: Price Matters

Although Buffet expounds on the promise of great businesses, he doesn’t pay any price for them. Even Buffet admits that at close to 2x book value, Berkshire may likely see price declines in the near future. How refreshing to have a CEO give an honest assessment of the stock price! Not many CEO’s admit their companies are priced to perfection; in fact today most CEO’s are paying egregious prices for their own stock!

Great businesses still need to be bought at sensible prices! What is sensible is debatable, but if your business evaluation skills are sufficient it’s generally achievable to be roughly right on the price. Great businesses are not on sale very often, but it certainly happens. The key is buying with deployable cash to pounce on opportunities (The 2008-2010 timeframe being the last great opportunity).

Price is an area where most investors screw up. We are hardwired to buy high and sell low, and even the best businesses make poor investments when bought at the wrong times. Activity will be skewed toward inaction 90% of the time, but the other 10% will provide incredible opportunities to pick up wonderful businesses at bargain prices.

Bonus: Charlie Munger’s Thoughts

Followers of Berkshire know the wisdom of Charlie Munger. Charlie didn’t disappoint as he gave us a few pages of insight in this year’s letter. I’ll leave you with one piece of advice that applies to both investing and life. Here Charlie describes one of the many aspects of how Warren set up his system for Berkshire Hathaway:

“His first priority would be reservation of much time for quiet reading and thinking, particularly that which might advance his determined learning, no matter how old he became…”

What great advice for investors and people in general! Notice he didn’t mention checking stock prices, scheduling meetings, or email. Great investors and great ideas are not built from at frantic pace at which the market operates. The compounding of knowledge over time will pay some large dividends if you don’t interrupt the process!

 

There is a treasure trove of great advice from Warren and Charlie on the Internet. Let me know and I can directly point you to the best material out there.

How a Famed Mathematician Can Make You a Better Investor

In the pursuit of building an investment education, I have found most insightful investment principles are often discovered in other disciplines. Investment books can be great, but most just rehash the same superficial material. True investment insight flows from deep principles that originated from other academic and professional fields.

Richard Hamming was a world renowned mathematician who pioneered research in computing and physics. He worked at the famed Bell Labs, helped design atomic bombs at Los Alamos, and advocated the redesign of mathematics education. Not only were his ideas valuable in computer science and physics, they clearly crossover into the investment world.

So what insights can Hamming share with investors that will enable a successful investment strategy?

Two foundational articles provide great insights for both beginning and sophisticated investors: “You and Your Research” and “A Stroke of Genius in Striving for Greatness in All You Do”. These articles provide a solid blueprint for constructing an investment education. Here are four ideas that readers can implement today.

“Great scientists have independent thoughts…and have the courage to pursue them.”

Hamming talked about the courage young scientists had to pursue new thoughts, instead of sticking with traditional methods. Great investors follow the same path. Independent thought is the linchpin for successful investing. Unaware to most investors, the outside influences we subconsciously entertain degrade the rational and logical mind necessary for investment success.

Great investing ideas often involve courage. The best opportunities are likely out of favor and take significant diligence to understand. Independence provides the clarity to see ideas in an unbiased light.

Investors are constantly being told what to buy, what to sell, and what to worry about. Sophisticated investors are extremely selective in what ideas and opinions they let through their filter. Investing doesn’t have to be a solo act, but each investor needs to build their own foundation.

Solution: My preferred method is to learn from other experts who have exhibited independence throughout their careers. Borrow ideas to fit your situation and mindset, rather than reinventing everything yourself. Some of my favorite examples are Richard Feynman, Teddy Roosevelt, and John Boyd.

“Knowledge and productivity are like compound interest. The more you know, the more you learn; the more you learn, the more you can do; the more you can do, the more the opportunity - it is very much like compound interest…One person who manages day in and day out to get in one more hour of thinking will be tremendously more productive over a lifetime.”

Investing requires diligent and consistent effort to build the competence to judge ideas and have the courage to stick with investments when times get tough. Investors have a nasty habit of interrupting compound growth to pursue hot ideas with a catchy story. Investor’s self-sabotage causes more problems than any geopolitical crisis or recession ever will.

Solution: Leverage great investors. My top 3 are Howard Marks, Warren Buffett, and James Montier. Build off their successes by reading one of their letters daily. Consistent effort in just a short time will yield tremendous results.

“You have to neglect things if you intend to get what you want done. There is no question about this.”

Not only is this quote practical for everyday life, it is also necessary for investors. There is too much information and distractions that bombard investors. To gain the necessary investment expertise and analytical edge, all superficial noise and wasted activity must be filtered away from investor’s attention. Whether it’s endless market commentary or concerns coming out of Europe, most of what investors read and hear has no useful purpose.

Solution: Make a conscious choice to go on an information/activity diet. Free up time that can be committed to building a particular investment skill. Abandon the thought of trying to conquer everything at once. Read a 10-K/Annual Report in your favorite industry each day and watch how a singular focus can deliver rapid investment growth.

“The people who do great work with less ability but who are committed to it, get more done that those who have great skill and dabble in it, who work during the day and go home and do other things and come back and work the next day. They don’t have the deep commitment that is apparently necessary for really first class work.”

Hamming’s insight is a great reminder to investors that investing is long term commitment. Just as great authors commit to their craft, great investors need to apply consistent effort in building their mental toolkit.

Solution: Decide how passionate and committed you are to improving your investment ability. The real test will occur when boredom & repetition sets in and you face a choice: keep building your skill or give up and see your progress unwind.

Actionable Investor Wisdom: Berkshire Hathaway 2015

As a dedicated attendee of the Berkshire Hathaway meeting, I believe the best part of the Berkshire Hathaway meeting is the numerous ideas and principles that carryover to everyday investors. This year, there were a number of valuable lessons and insightful, under the radar comments that will help investors make more money with much less stress. Below is my summary of the can’t-miss lessons investors should take away from the meeting.

No Single Model to Evaluate Businesses

Warren and Charlie forcefully dispelled the myth that there is a secret formula for buying great companies. Investors try to hunt for shortcuts, but were disappointed to hear that there is no easy solution. Charlie and Warren look for businesses that they can reasonably assess over the next 5 years with honest management teams.

The best comments described how they accept/reject opportunities. Their approach was not to look for positive attributes but to look for negative attributes and eliminate those companies. This path leaves only a small number of investable options. Don’t begin the search by focusing on great attributes, but first look for red flags that can eliminate and narrow down choices.

On Investment Success

One of Charlie’s best one-liners: “If people weren’t so often wrong, we wouldn’t be so rich.” It’s a blunt reminder about what drives success and failure in investing. There is nothing arbitrary about losing money. Warren and Charlie highlighted the unintuitive fact that their success is more about removing mistakes from their decisions than trying to know everything.

Investor’s decisions would be much improved by focusing on avoiding the same mistakes that Berkshire avoids: buying story stocks, trading too much, avoiding leveraged companies, etc. It’s simply easier and more profitable to avoid bad decisions, than it is to make good decisions.

Macro Worries

Charlie mentioned they have almost never turned down a deal due to macro factors. They discussed that what they pay adjusts based on the environment, but they don’t let macro factors override the ability to buy a great business at a fair price. As Charlie said, “When you start making predictions you start thinking you know something.”

Investors need to avoid the habit of fooling themselves. In addition, investors spend an inordinate amount of time thinking and worrying about macro conditions. They are much better served by focusing on dependable companies at attractive prices. I’ve seen an exceptional amount of investor money lost by macro-influenced mistakes.

Ego

Charlie: “Ego makes people do dumb things.” Ego causes several problems to investors, including not admitting mistakes and overconfidence. Warren and Charlie admitted several times on stage that they “don’t know” and had no trouble avoiding this trap. Investors need to stop chasing ego-induced decisions that dominate much of the professional and retail investment markets.

Multitasking

Charlie: “I have to think hard about one thing and the concept of multitasking doesn’t appeal to me.” He described how he doesn’t get how people can manage three things at once. This lesson certainly applies to everyday life, and it’s reassuring that the best investors still focus on one task at a time.

There is a complete misconception that successful investing is based on the hyperactive overloading of your brain. Tune out distractions and focus on the long-term fundamentals underlying opportunities.

Leverage

Both Warren and Charlie were asked about adding financial leverage to the business. They responded that they could have, but they “prefer not to sweat at night.” Berkshire Hathaway has done exceptionally well without additional leverage. Both prefer to sleep well rather than maximize potential returns.

A critical concept to investors who are always trying to juice investment returns. It works for a while, but comes at a significant future cost. The cost is not apparent today but will arise when an inevitable crisis hits. Leverage is often added near market peaks since emotions and confidence are high, leading to catastrophic investment losses when prices fall. Investors can easily build great portfolios without the burden of leverage.

I encourage all investors to attend the Berkshire Hathaway meeting at least once in their lifetime. Written notes can’t describe the clarity, simplicity, and humor in how they communicate their lessons. The meetings have tended to get better each year, as Warren and Charlie seemed to have let their guard down and enjoy delivering blunt and honest responses. Contact me for additional notes and advice from the meeting or other Berkshire-related questions.

Are You One of Jamie Dimon’s Lazy Shareholders?

JP Morgan’s CEO Jamie Dimon was spot on after pointing out the laziness of shareholders who blindly followed consultants Glass Lewis and ISS by voting against Dimon’s pay package.

Here’s Dimon via USA Today:          

God knows how any of you can place your vote based on ISS or Glass Lewis, If you do that, you are just irresponsible, I'm sorry. And you probably aren't a very good investor, either. And you do. Believe me. I know some of you here do it because you’re lazy."

Now a few of ISS and Glass Lewis’s claims have some merit. JPM’s compensation disclosure is far from perfect, which unfortunately is par for the course in the proxy world.

The general level of disclosure in public company proxies is lacking. Bonuses are often based on vague goals, unverifiable metrics, or “adjusted” figures that usually skew to the benefit of management. It’s impossible for any diligent shareholder to have a complete picture of exactly how a board of directors rewards management.

However, the really appalling issue, as Dimon highlighted, is the widespread laziness of investors who are unable or unwilling to read a proxy and decide for themselves.

It’s a concerning trend that investors (the actual business owners) outsource the responsibility of proxy evaluation. Understanding the motivations and incentives of management and board behavior is a critical driver of investment success. Even a ballpark analysis of comp/bonus trends reveals egregious actions and disturbing board behavior. Missing these red flags has destroyed massive amounts of shareholder value.

Proxies are not a tough read for sophisticated investors. Yet some of the biggest (and supposedly sophisticated) investors can’t manage the ability to spend time reading the proxy. It boils down to an abdication of responsibility. It’s now the norm for investors outsource their thinking, creating a population of helpless investors who can’t form an independent opinion.

By deflecting responsibility towards sell-side research, ratings agencies, and corporate guidance, investors fall for the temptation of intellectual shortcuts rather than commit to hard thinking.

The overwhelming propensity of investors is to follow the herd and abandon any ability to think for themselves. The constant reliance on outside help lures investors into confusing information gathering with genuine analysis. The proxy issue is a symptom of a much larger problem: investors who have bigger and more confident opinions on investments they know less and less about. Institutional investors need to commit to full, independent, and thorough due diligence that is respectfully due to their clients.

A Guide To Profit From Market Panics

3 practical steps to profit from market volatility

Most investors hate volatile markets. The best investors exploit volatile markets. Where do you fall? If you witnessed the markets on Aug 24th, you saw extreme price swings not seen since the financial crisis. How is it possible to see huge, high-quality companies trade down 20% and then finish up on the day? The culprits are the massive amount of algorithmic trading and momentum driven investors who try to “get out” before other investors and exacerbate price pressure by adding to the selling. So how can an investor, with little knowledge of the market, end up on the profitable side of market volatility?

Have cash ready to deploy

Nothing is better for capitalizing on volatility than cash reserves ready to be put to work. Not only does cash hold its value during the turmoil, investors don’t have to contemplate what to sell. What’s a good cash level to hold? The best cash amount is a residual level based on the valuations of the equity and fixed income securities in your portfolio and opportunities in the market. 5-20% of your portfolio is a good guide, with more cash as markets get more expensive. Although investors hate getting paid nothing on cash, capturing excess returns during market distress more than compensates for the non-existent yields.

Have a list of quality securities ready to buy 

In times of panic, investors don’t have time to thoroughly research potential investments. The news flow and market movements causes focus to disappear. The solution is to have a portfolio of companies or securities ready to purchase at the right price. All that is missing is a better price, which will occur when volatility strikes. By having this list ready, investors can quickly decide and execute orders without any doubts about the companies they are buying. Best of all, high quality companies get pulled down with the rest of the market. No need to chase highly leveraged, near bankrupt companies. As seen on Aug 24th, companies like GE and Pepsi were pushed down over 20%.

Patience

The biggest problem for investors is the desire to be fully invested at all times because the pain of “doing nothing” is too great. Add in the fact that cash pays nothing today, and you get investors chasing yield all over the market-often in sectors and companies they don’t understand. Great investors have an inordinate amount of patience and conviction in their methodology and knowledge of financial markets. They know crises are hard to predict, but happen in a somewhat regular pattern. Of all three ideas, patience is the most importance. Without it, great ideas and concepts will never be put to work at the right time.

I’ve consistently heard clients talk about market volatility and extreme price moves as if it’s a huge negative. It is if you are unprepared. Great investors see dislocations as an opportunity. Investors have been indoctrinated to worry and pay close attention to short-term volatility, instead of focusing on long-term business returns. Smart investors hope for days like Aug 24th, when unintelligent computer trading and irrational investors rush for the market exit. Those who view volatility as a huge risk instead of opportunity have seriously handicapped their investment portfolio.

Investing By Subtraction

"What does you in is not failure to apply some high level, intricate, complicated technique. It’s overlooking the basics. Not keeping your eye on the ball.”1 - Eliezer Yudkowsky

When investors must confront unexpected problems, their first reaction is to consider new investments, strategies, or funds to deal with the pressing issues. The typical assumption is that something must be missing and by finding that magical investment addition, the new portfolio will be once again be fortified against future problems.

This thought process leads to big problems. Portfolio performance is often handicapped by adding new investments. It’s a human flaw to think that every problem is solved by adding something. It’s often found in medicine (if you are sick add medication), regulation (if there is a problem, add more laws), education (if student outcomes are poor add more testing and requirements).

“It is remarkable how much long-term advantage people like us have gotten by trying to be consistently not stupid, instead of trying to be very intelligent.”       - Charlie Munger

People fail to consider that problem removal should be the first solution. Investment failures often originate from within! Portfolios often improve by subtractinginvestments, funds, or strategies, not by adding them. Investor allocations have become so heavy with funds layered upon funds, even a sophisticated investor is powerless to make intelligent decisions. Complexity is not sophisticated, simplification is sophisticated.

Less is more: paradox of choice. Large selection leads to inner paralysis. The more choice you have, the more unsure and therefore dissatisfied you are afterward. In this age of unlimited variety, good enough is the new optimum. Learn to love a good choice. – Rolf Dobelli, The Art of Thinking Clearly

The Art of Investing is Knowing What to Remove

Because investors have been taught that it’s useless to think about investment fundamentals and price vs. value, they resort to a shotgun approach of funds and strategies. They succumb to the myth that owning a cluster of random products is diversified and that alone will protect themselves against bad outcomes. Unfortunately, this assumption fails in most instances.

“Sophisticated or complex methods do not necessarily provide more accurate forecasts than simpler ones.”2 – Robin Hogarth

High Correlations

Investors fail to realize their exposure to tight correlations. Most portfolios have tremendous overlap in crowded trades because investors choose to be willfully ignorant of the investments they own.

Labels and Categories are Misleading

Investors rely on superficial categories that fail to explain true exposures. A European company may have 80% of its sales and profits from outside the Eurozone, yet it would be considered 100% European exposure. It’s a common shortcut among investors and advisors because they are too lazy to examine the underlying investments. Labels such as low-risk, liquid, and stable are widely used but often fail to reflect the underlying risks.

Lack of Insight and Understanding

Finally, when a crisis or financial panic ensues, investors have no idea what kind of quality they own. Or know good managers vs. bad managers. Or what investments are undervalued vs. going to zero. And so on…

In this age of information abundance and overload, those who get ahead will be the folks who figure out what to leave out, so they can concentrate on what’sreally important to them. Nothing is more paralyzing than the idea of limitless possibilities. The idea that you can do anything is absolutely terrifying.”- Austin Kleon, Steal Like an Artist

Investors fool themselves into a false sense of comfort during calm times, only to be exposed and their confidence decimated when the markets get ugly. By reducing investment complexity down to a manageable level, investors will actually understand their true risk exposures. In a world of multi-tasking and unnecessary complexity, simplification is often the antidote to excessive choice and complications. Investors have been taught that diversification works, while making no distinction between the triumph of intelligent diversification and the failure of mindless diversification.

5 Ways Bruce Lee Can Make You A Better Investor

A number of worldly subjects enhance investing wisdom, but the lessons and histories of martial arts provide exceptional value for investors. One of the most famous martial artists, Bruce Lee, was an accomplished author and teacher in addition to his devastating martial art skills. His book, the Tao of Jeet Kune Do, is necessary reading for martial artists and investors. The foundation of the martial arts share many attributes with investing. By taking time to study Lee, you will find an intriguing and effective way to protect your investment portfolio.

I have realized that most important lessons come from outside the “core” disciplines of investing or finance. In fact, I can’t think of many great ideas that originate from the core fields. Instead, subjects such as philosophy, psychology, war/military, and the hard sciences provide real investing lessons. However, only those investors who look introspectively at their mindset and the nature of investing will apply these principles at the right moments.

There are many lessons from Bruce Lee, but the following five ideas will give you an introduction to the parallels between martial arts and investing.

Insight #1

While being trained, the student is to be active and dynamic in every way. But in actual combat, his mind must be calm and not disturbed at all. He must feel as if nothing critical is happening. When he advances, his steps should be light and secure, his eyes fixed and glaring insanely at the enemy. His behavior should not be in any way different from his everyday behavior; no change taking place in his expression, nothing betraying the fact that he engaged in mortal combat. –Bruce Lee

During calm times, you should run through worst-case scenarios, alternate options, and build plans to deal with the uncertain future. Complacent markets provide the time to be “active and dynamic” when running through all the possible ways things can go wrong. It’s a perfect time to simulate all the possible “what if” scenarios that could occur. Rigorous investment preparation starts when things are peaceful, not during crises.

When a crisis actually occurs, you must heed Bruce Lee’s advice and act as if nothing critical is happening. Use these moments to execute the preconceived plan, without manic-depressive behaviors that occupy most investors. If you find yourself desperate to create a plan during a panic, you are not only late but likely to make emotionally charged and disastrous decisions.

For example, if an outside observer saw you during a market panic, would they be able to tell if there is a crisis occurring? Over-reacting and dramatizing market downturns is not a badge of honor – it’s a sign of poor preparation and lack of emotional control. Prepare for downturns when times are calm and the outlook is positive, because you need to keep your head for the rough times that are likely to follow.

Insight #2

Instead of facing combat in its suchness, then, most systems of martial art accumulate a “fancy mess” that distorts and cramps their practitioners and distracts them from the actual reality of combat, which is simple and direct. Instead of going immediately to the heart of things, flowery forms (organized despair) and artificial techniques are ritualistically practiced to simulate actual combat. Thus, instead of “being” in combat, these practitioners are “doing” something “about” combat. –Bruce Lee

In investing’s simplest form, you give up cash today with some uncertain but expected return of cash in the future. That’s it. For some investments, the cash flows my occur regularly and perhaps somewhat predictably; for others it may be a decade before the cash flow received exceeds the cash invested. Neither option is necessarily good or bad – it all depends on what you pay for those cash flows and the riskiness of the cash flows.

Problems begin with investor’s unstable attitudes and poor understanding of the market. Investing has become so complicated and convoluted – constant monitoring of the U.S. and foreign news flow, Federal Reserve actions, Greece problems, short-term volatility, market volume analysis, trend following, technical analysis, earnings estimates, and so on. None of these factors provide any real help for the investor.

What Bruce Lee called a “fancy mess” – distortions that distracts practitioners from the actual reality of combat, is the same problem facing investors: distractions and illusions about what really drives the actual reality of investing.

Successful investing strips away the noise and distractions of the financial industry and redirects focus toward the core principles of what are you paying for a set of cash flows and the riskiness of those cash flows. Everything else is largely a distraction – built in some way to make you act contrary to your nature.

As Bruce Lee stated, “Jeet Kune Do [Lee’s Martial Art] does not beat around the bush. It does not take winding detours. It follows a straight line to the objective. Simplicity is the shortest distance between two points.”

Avoid investing’s “winding detours” - excessive trading, emotional turmoil, fruitless agonizing over noise, pointless ruminations, etc.

To paraphrase Bruce Lee, most investors are not investing, they are “doing” something “about” investing. As Lee mentioned, they have “a blind devotion to the systematic uselessness of practicing routines or stunts that lead nowhere.” So replace superficial activity with real work on the fundamentals of the investment. Make this clear in your mind– are you really investing, or are you dancing around the edges of investing?

Insight #3

Stylists, instead of looking directly into the fact, cling to forms (theories) and go on entangling themselves further and further, finally putting themselves into an inextricable snare. – Bruce Lee

Investors’ greatest problems arise when they are convinced they “know” what’s going on and fail to adjust beliefs when presented with new facts. No one is immune to this problem. Ironically, sophisticated and intelligent investors have a greater chance of falling for these biases.

Investors have a hard time accepting the failure of their prior beliefs and theories, especially those held for a long time or those that were developed internally. Ego protection is a problem in martial arts and it’s a problem in investing - it’s a problem for life in general. The unwillingness to kill your sacred beliefs leads to disaster.

Bruce Lee stated, “As martial artists continue to pursue a path of blind acceptance and unwavering confidence, they trap themselves in an ‘inextricable snare’.”

Investors often have the same mindset. I regularly witness bad beliefs. Some investors fall in love with certain asset classes (gold, T-bills, stocks) or pet theories (the U.S. dollar is worthless, capitalism is evil).The problem isn’t that they hold incorrect views, it’s their absolute conviction that they are right that is the major problem.

Insight #4

“Understanding requires not just a moment of perception, but a continuous awareness, a continuous state of inquiry without conclusion.”- Bruce Lee

Premature closure of one’s mind and acceptance of things as true/false is a handicap – not a blessing. Since people’s minds are resolved to remove ambiguity, we create stories to make sense of this world. Your ultimate desire to have mental closure over their investments is a short-term emotional fix that will lead to longer term damage. You must accept that the world is uncertain and highly unpredictable – your beliefs today are likely to be proven wrong in the future. But this should not be viewed as a negative – it’s simply reality and part of our human nature. Acceptance of this fact leads to a tremendous amount of peace and contentment when you abandon the belief that you have to know everything. Instead, you remain in a “continuous state of inquiry” – always ready to update your beliefs and never hesitant to admit your errors.

Insight #5

The second-hand artist blindly follows his sensei or sifu accepts his pattern. As a result, his action and, more importantly, his thinking become mechanical. His responses become automatic, according to set patterns, making him narrow and limited. – Bruce Lee

One of the most influential investors is Charlie Munger. His ideas surrounding mental models has been a beacon of light in an industry polluted with bad ideas and self-serving activities. Bruce Lee also reinforces the Munger’s warning on the limitations of blindly following one ideology, theory, or pattern.

Investors, like martial artists, need to continually expand their circle of competence and actively seek out new theories that disprove their current beliefs. In combat, failure to embrace better methods leads to death. In investing, failure to embrace better methods of analysis and knowledge lead to portfolio destruction. Investors who resolve that they “know enough” and don’t need to learn will succumb to obsolescence and decay.

Summary

  1. Have a contrarian mindset - skeptical/questioning during bull markets; calm and decisive during bear markets.
  2. Focus on investing’s core principles – stay away from superficial and “flowery” activity.
  3. Avoid investing dogma – continuous challenging of your beliefs and desire to seek disconfirming evidence.
  4. Accept the never-ending learning process with investing – you will never get to 100% certainty and comfort.

The Resilient Investor: 10 Habits of Mentally Tough Investors

Great investors develop mental toughness through proper mindset and habits. These are 10 guiding principles to condition the mind for investment success. 

1. They Don’t Worry About Issues Outside Their Control 

Much of investing and life is outside your control. Wise investors learn to recognize what they can control and what they can’t. The things that can’t be controlled are ignored. 

2. They Don’t Obsess Over Volatility

It’s a fact: every day markets go up and down. Trying to obsessively negate volatility usually worsens it. The value of every asset you own, including your own human capital, moves up and down every day. Only you don’t see it, so you normally don’t worry about it. Do the same for random market fluctuations. 

3. They Don’t Judge Success by Short-Term Results

Great things take time – going through medical school, becoming a professional athlete, or mastering chess. Investing is no different. The quick wins in investing are usually random and short-lived. Luck rules in the short term, process rules in the long term.

4. They Don’t Blindly Follow Popular Wisdom

Great ideas develop from an independent and thoughtful analysis – and may or may not conform to the crowd. While the crowd is often right, it spectacularly fails when you need it the most. The crowd is not the judge of a good vs. bad decision. Facts and reason are the judge.

5. They Don’t Abandon Their Strategy

All strategies temporarily fail at some time. Even the winningest coaches and athletes have losing seasons and rough periods. Thoughtful investing plans go through the same ups and downs. Investors constantly chase what is working today, only to get in at the peak and bail at the bottom.

6. They Don’t Feel the Market Owes Them Anything

Whatever insight or idea you believe is the next big thing is not as good as you think it is. At best it’s probably mediocre and at worst it’s a disaster. The market does not exist to guarantee a happy retirement. It doesn’t always work out. It doesn’t care how hard you work. Investing success is dependent on accepting that you are entirely responsible for your success or failure.

7. They Don’t Compare Results to Other Investors

There will always be investors richer than you so get over it. When most investors talk about their big winners they are either lying or selectively forgetting about all losers they’ve had. Comparisons to others only inflame ego and emotionally destructive decisions.

8. They Don’t Have Absolute Confidence

Great investors have an understated confidence: confident in their long-term process, humble in their short-term forecasts and market predictions.

9. They Don’t Stress Over Continuously Changing Conditions

As the saying goes, the only constant is change. Great investors embrace unpredictability, amateur investors are paralyzed by it. Success comes not from anticipating change, but adapting to change.

10. They Don’t Live in the Past

Of course the past is obvious in hindsight. Great investors accept their mistakes, omissions, and failures. The past is a sunk cost. All that matters is you learn from the past and then move forward. Focus on today and your plan going forward.

How Investors Should Navigate the Non-GAAP Earnings Confusion

There has been a recent surge in the controversy surrounding non-GAAP earnings. While the debate continues on the proper use of non-GAAP metrics, investors can’t expect outside help and need to take control of their own understanding and interpretation of non-GAAP adjustments. Investors can’t rely on “guidance” from companies or regulators.

The problems run deeper than the GAAP vs. non-GAAP debate. The actual problem is investor’s lack of commitment to a thorough, fundamental understanding of the company. Without adequate understanding, investors will never be able to tell non-GAAP truth from fiction.  There is never a hard and fast set of rules to determine the validity of GAAP exceptions. Like any set of standards, there are exceptions and situations that don’t fit the model. The extreme doubters of GAAP or non-GAAP miss the point: no system is perfect. It’s the investor’s responsibility to determine the best representation of economic reality. Blind devotion to SEC guidance, FASB standards, or company management is a dangerous path.

This article will help guide investors into asking the right questions involving non-GAAP metrics. This advice cannot replace actual analysis, but will give investors a better framework for thinking about these issues.

3 Rules to Remember

  1. Always reconcile each adjustment using the GAAP to non-GAAP reconciliation

Regardless of a company’s adjustments, investors should always reconcile to GAAP earnings. This figure, required by the SEC, allows investors to see a clean breakdown of non-GAAP adjustments. Unfortunately, that’s the easy part. The hard part is understanding what items are legitimate and which are not. Analyze every line item on an individual basis to determine its validity. One or two adjustments account for most of the deviations from GAAP. Unfortunately, there are no clear cut answers on which expenses are legitimate and which are egregious. Materiality depends on the company and industry dynamics. The only way to know is to dive deep into the business and financial statements.

  1. Pull up and compare reconciliations for the past 5 years

Don’t limit your analysis to the current year. Compare what “recurring”, non-recurring expenses have been consistent over many years. Repeated appearance is clear evidence that these charges are recurring in nature, even as management argues “one-off” or too volatile/unpredictable. In fact, a quick glance at successive reconciliations should show no yearly correlations between line items. Also, understand that the absence of repeated charges doesn’t mean one-time charges are legitimate. Evaluate every adjustment on its own merit.

  1. Match the reconciliation to the business model

Serial acquirers should not have their acquisition-related charges excluded. Acquisitions are part of their strategy and the associated expenses are legitimate and recurring. Major problems develop when analysts and management teams guide to high top and bottom line growth without the necessary acquisition spending to support that growth. It’s unfortunate that overconfident/aggressive companies and investors permit this mismatch to make valuation, free cash flow, and EPS more impressive. Some quick investor math on the implied ROICs would show an unsustainable level of ROIC into the future.

A Cheat Sheet for Common Adjustments

I’ve tried to make the case that the legitimacy of non-GAAP measures is dependent on the individual company, the business model, the competitive environment, the management team, etc. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. While that will bother investors who want an easy answer, it’s reality. For those investors who want a quick guide to thinking and interpreting non-GAAP measures, I have compiled a quick guide of questions to ask on each topic.

Reorganization/Transition/Restructuring Expenses

Look for a continued history of these charges. The “serial restructuring” company should be obvious by the year after year disclosure of the same items. Again, the investor’s familiarity with the company and management team will drive the analysis. Restructuring charges were expenses that should have been realized all along in the past. Instead, companies get to kitchen sink these expenses as one-time items. Investors should normalize past profitability by blending the charge through past income statements to get a better gauge of historic profitability. This will lead investors to a better understanding of economic profitability, rather than just ignoring the charges.

Investors need to be realistic in their margin assumptions going forward. While most investors and management teams love to project a never-ending upward trajectory of margin expansion, reality and competition will dictate otherwise. Today, assume that the company you are looking at will likely have their “restructuring moment” sometime in the future, so adjust your understanding and valuation today to avoid getting blindsided in the future.

Options Expense

Why the options debate continues is beyond me. When you give away a claim or an option on company’s equity, that’s an expense. The argument for comparability has no merit in my mind. If one company is giving away more equity than another, the analysis/valuation should reflect that. Ignoring options expense only drives understanding further away from the truth. Because analysts want their models to be nice and clean, it leads to analysis that is borderline worthless.

Consider this example: if company A is paying its employee’s salaries at 2x the level of company B, should analysts back out the “extra” salary for comparability sake? I don’t think so. If a company chooses to pay more or issue more options, reflect that in their numbers.

Foreign Exchange

Companies with significant foreign operations (over 30% of revenue) should treat F/X movements as natural, recurring expenses/benefits. I understand the desire for comparability, but simply ignoring these movements is ignoring reality. Instead, use the company’s disclosures to set a framework for understanding the economic exposure. Given the rapid devaluation in Venezuela, Brazil, Russia, etc, it’s paramount to understand that these losses are more often than not real, economic expense, not just some accounting fiction.

In general, ignoring volatile f/x movements because they don’t model well will just create more unpleasant surprises for the investors in the future. What matters for investors are the long-term economic results, and if f/x movements are continually part of those results, then include them.

Amortization of Intangible Assets– Customer Relationships/Lists, Patents/Technology, Brands/Trademarks

Amortization of Intangibles is often a large component of non-GAAP earnings and the key is to separate and evaluate each intangible.

Patents and technology intangibles are typically always a true expense. The value of these assets declines as competing technologies render the current assets obsolete over time. Often, in a much quicker timeframe than the actual amortization period. Exercise extreme caution if a company claims their technology assets don’t depreciate or need reinvestment.

On the flipside, brands are almost always indefinite and don’t need separate reinvestment as ongoing marketing expense and normal reinvestment will support the intangible value into the future.

The same is true with customer relationships. A company will never have to have an annual budget item for customer relationships to maintain that asset. There is one caveat to ignoring brand and customer intangibles expense. Investors must ensure the business is adequately reinvesting in itself to make the case that brand and customer intangibles don’t need expensing. If the business is underinvesting, the intangibles will lose their value.

Debt Tender/Retirement

Usually, debt retirement is a one-time event since I rarely see consistent debt retirement in material amounts. The key is to look into the future and try to anticipate these costs in advance and work them into your analysis. If it appears that a debt exchange or swap will have material consequences, it’s better to know about it before than after. Again, not a meaningful issue.

Litigation Expense

Depends on the litigious nature of the industry and legal history of the company. For example, constant litigation has hammered big banks since the financial crises. Are these expenses recurring in nature? In banking, I believe they are recurring, but not to the extent of the past five years. Investors would be wise to assume some normal, ongoing expense into the future. The seeds of the next legal war are being planted today, so reserve for them today.

In addition, some companies have one-time, but massive penalties. BP comes to mind. How should investors handle that expense? I would again advise incorporating some reserve expense for future disasters in future cash flows since energy E&P is an unpredictable and volatile endeavor. Of course, this is not an exact science so it will be a subjective guess. But it’s more preferable than ignoring these realities and assuming the good times will last.

Asset/Goodwill Impairments

There are two lines of thinking I use as I approach an impairment situation. First, an impairment is nothing more than the final admission and confirmation that a company overpaid on an asset or acquisition in the past. It’s simple. They paid too much. Companies will argue that any specific impairment charge will not continue in the future. I agree with them. However, the key is that a company with repeated asset write-downs will likely continue making bad acquisitions and will suffer future impairments. Of course, no company will ever admit to that.

Depreciation

In 99.9% of cases, depreciation is a real expense.  If a company is reconciling to EBITDA, that’s fine. The issues with EBITDA are another topic. But if a company is adding back depreciation expense to net income, that’s a red flag. The common exception is excess depreciation on assets that have longer useful lives than GAAP dictates. This is rare in my experience. However, company managements will often claim longer useful lives than normal, knowing that the future costs and reinvestment won’t hit until the future. MLP’s are a great example of trying to push the belief that maintenance capex and associated depreciation is much lower than GAAP suggests. There may be some exceptions, but that’s usually pure marketing spin.

Acquisition-related costs

Look over the past 5 to 10 years and see if the company is a serial acquirer. If they are, include acquisition costs in earnings. It’s a core part of their strategy, and the costs need to be counted. Check to see if it is a “one-off” acquisition that was not made in place of real capex. Acquisitions are often another form of capex needed by companies to remain competitive; however, most analysts treat them as incremental, instead of replacement investment. How do you tell the difference? Look at the competitive nature of the industry and barriers to entry. Most companies need to continually reinvest just to stay in place. If this is the case, an acquisition is likely a “replacement” style expenditure. In addition, if the growth and earnings expectations of the company is dependent on future acquisitions, the future costs need to be included in company valuation.

Gain/Loss on Sale of Assets

This is one charge that is more likely to be non-recurring since so few companies consistently buy and sell assets on a regular basis. Most of these adjustments have less impact than some other big adjustments, and as long as companies are treating both gains and losses in the same manner, there isn’t an issue.

Severance Charges

Just like restructuring charges, these are more recurring in nature than one-off. Many companies I analyze follow a predictable pattern of overexpansion during the good times followed by restructuring/realignment/right-sizing charges in the downtime. So when times are good, especially for cyclical companies like mining and energy, understand those results are likely biased too high. Don’t believe the “this is permanently higher” marketing. Investors should focus on a “normalized” earnings approach, as cyclical companies like mining, agriculture, and energy always correct.

Conclusion

Non-GAAP metrics are useful because they enable better fundamental understanding of the core business. It’s the investor’s job to figure out what is legitimate vs. non-legitimate. It’s not the fault of GAAP, FASB, the SEC, or any other regulatory body. They are doing the best they can to create principles and rules to fit all companies. Quite a tough task. The incessant bashing on the faults of GAAP is misplaced; it’s just the reality of trying to fit diverse companies into one system. Non-GAAP earnings are not bad, and neither are most managements. What’s bad is investor’s blind acceptance of other’s ideas without doing the necessary work themselves.