This I agree with. While 100 Baggers by @chriswmayer is a fabulous book, there is a need for literature on building the conviction to hold.

And it’s not easy to develop a conviction to hold on to things that should be held. There are these “demons” that will enter the mind of the investor, which will prevent them from holding on to what will turn out to be an outstanding stock.
Demon # 1: The market is too expensive, so I should sell this business. This demon shifts the investor’s focus from the economics of the underlying business to the markets.
Demon # 2: It’s gone up so much, and it can’t go up much more from here. This demon makes the investors anchor to their cost, which is irrelevant.
Demon # 3: Look at the P/ E multiple. It’s too high. Other things are much cheaper. I should switch and lower the P/E of the portfolio. This demon makes one sell an outstanding business and replace it with a mediocre one.
Demon # 4: It’s become too big a position. I must think about risk management because you know, shit happens? This demon makes one ignore that real wealth is almost always lopsided and makes one worry about the other reality: wealth destruction also comes from over concentration.
Demon # 5: The management made a capital allocation error, or they did a related party transaction, or a slowdown in the industry is coming, and earnings will take a hit etc.
This demon will make you want to sell a stock because of adverse developments, which in retrospect will turn out to be non-events in the long run.
Demon # 6: You can’t go broke by taking a profit. This demon will also prevent the investor from ever seeing a 100 bagger.
The fun part here is that all these demons are “good demons” a lot of the time. That is a lot of the times listening to them will turn out to be excellent ideas.
It’s just that in true compounders, which will go on to become worth hundreds of times of investment cost, they will turn out to be “bad demons” who emerged to prevent the investor from making a tremendous amount of money.
And while it’s easy to say with hindsight that oh, I should have ignored the market or the jump in stock price or the P/E multiple or the position size or management behaviour or the impending slowdown etc., at the time these demons emerge, they will occupy the investor’s mind.
When those demons occur, they will make the investor panic and become loss averse. The fear of losing unrealised gains is very, very painful. And the demons know that.
I don’t know of ways on how to fight these demons which are better than reading up on how great investors build conviction in their journeys.
Charlie Munger once said that the key to a successful marriage is to keep your eyes wide open before marriage and only partly open after marriage. He was talking about developing conviction to hold.
Philip Fisher has written extensively on this subject in his various books. And so has Peter Lynch. And of course, @chriswmayer and Thomas Phelps, whose book inspired Chris to write his book.
The critical thing to note here is that you will never know in advance if the demons you are battling with while developing the conviction to hold will turn out to be good demons or bad ones.
Forgot to mention @iancassel whose dozens of tweets are also on developing the conviction to hold…

More from All

https://t.co/6cRR2B3jBE
Viruses and other pathogens are often studied as stand-alone entities, despite that, in nature, they mostly live in multispecies associations called biofilms—both externally and within the host.

https://t.co/FBfXhUrH5d


Microorganisms in biofilms are enclosed by an extracellular matrix that confers protection and improves survival. Previous studies have shown that viruses can secondarily colonize preexisting biofilms, and viral biofilms have also been described.


...we raise the perspective that CoVs can persistently infect bats due to their association with biofilm structures. This phenomenon potentially provides an optimal environment for nonpathogenic & well-adapted viruses to interact with the host, as well as for viral recombination.


Biofilms can also enhance virion viability in extracellular environments, such as on fomites and in aquatic sediments, allowing viral persistence and dissemination.

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x