Tesla, Ford, GM, and Fiat Chrysler

It’s hard to make sense of what’s happening in the stock market. There’s no simple explanation to why certain profitable companies can trade at 10x Price-Earnings (PE) or why money-losing companies are trading at 100x. The automobile industry is an example. There has been little appetite for traditional auto makers like GM and Ford. Tesla (TSLA) captures all the electric-vehicle (EV) enthusiasm. Tesla is trading at $930 a share, up 200% in a year and 121% less than two months in 2020.

Tesla chart vs GM Ford Fiat

Below is the market capitalization of some of the main auto manufacturers with total car sold in 2019:

  1. Toyota Motor: $196b, 10.7m cars
  2. Tesla: Market cap: $168b, 367,500 cars
  3. Volkswagen: $90b, 10.9m cars
  4. GM: $50b, 7.7m
  5. Honda Motor: $47b, 4.8m
  6. Ford: $32, 4.9m
  7. Fiat Chrysler: $26b, 4.3m


How has Tesla surpassed Volkswagen which sells 30 times more cars? How does Tesla’s valuation dwarfs the combined market value of Ford, General Motors, and Fiat Chrysler? Globally, the only competitor Tesla trails is Toyota Motor at $196b.

Of course profits, cash flow, and valuation are important. But in the short-term what matters the most is story telling. Tesla and Elon Musk are pushing are very interesting story: Tesla is the car of the future. They are revolutionizing the car industry and saving the planet along the way. Tesla’s cars are cool and high-tech. It’s a computer on wheels. They are a status symbol. Now compare that story to Ford’s “have you driven a Ford lately?” (I have no clue if that’s still their thing). The point is one car company are making investors excited and the others are not.

The belief in Tesla is cult like. You can throw anything at Tesla and the stock just keeps going up. Just last week there has been a car recall, a SEC subpoena, $2b of new shares issued, explosion in warranty expenses, and yet the market doesn’t care. That’s on the top of losing over $700m in 2019. The SEC revelation, that alone, can spook investors. They check up on company accounting and financial practices and nobody seems to care.

The value of a stock is based on future expectations. In this case, the market believes that Tesla will become the biggest and most profitable car company in the world. Over the long term, the expectation is that revenue growth will translate into growth in profits and free cash flow. The value of any investment is the present value of future free cash flows. The market also believe that Tesla’s rise reflects investor expectations that the company will remain at the cutting edge of technological change in the auto industry.

It’s important to note that growth does not always create value. A company can grow, but if it doesn’t earn above the cost of capital, that growth destroys value. In order for growth to create value, a company must earn returns above its cost of capital.


What’s going on with Ford? It hasn’t been an easy year or five years for Ford. The stock has been an absolute dog for years despite seeing their trucks everywhere. The F-series is one the best selling vehicle every year. They are nice. They are a symbol. They are fun. And they are expensive and very profitable. The upcoming Bronco has a nice buzz around it and the Mustang Mach-E has a big reservation list. Still none of that seems to matter. The stock is around $8, half of what they were a couple years ago. It has a juicy dividend of 7.4%. But…the most important question is will they cut it? The current dividend commitment is $2.4 billion annually and guided $2.4-$3.4b for 2020 in free cash flow. Ford does have a strong balance sheet with a cash position of $22 billion and its liquidity, which includes lines of credit, totaled about $35 billion. Ford has to fund the dividend, its capital plan and a restructuring.

They are in a $11b turnaround that never seems to end. Ford disappointed investors with its earnings and guidance.The current CEO seems to be on the right path despite the never ending issues. He adopted the playbook that other companies, like GM and Fiat Chrysler, are now using which is a larger focus on profitably vs market share. These companies were trying to be everything for everyone and it’s not working.

The car industry is changing fast and Ford is in the middle of that struggle. The last five years hasn’t been good for Ford. The main question is what will the next five be like?


There’s no love for GM. The story here is that GM is an old traditional auto maker, not one that is taking a plunge in the future.

Every year the stock seems to get cheaper on an earning basis, but cash flow ultimately came up short for one reason or another. GM trades for less than 6 times estimated 2020 earnings and Ford sells for 7 times. The comparable figure for Tesla stock is about 88 times. Is 2020 the year for GM?

GM does have a plan for an all-electric future featuring leading-edge autonomous-driving technology with their Cruise division (valued at $19b alone but that’s because of Softbank’s investment, so they probably paid too much like everything else). GM is saying the right things by addressing climate change and decarbonization.

The market gives little credit to the huge amount of cash GM generates. For 2020, it forecast almost $7 billion of free cash flow. At that level, GM stock, trading at $35, would have a free-cash-flow yield of almost 13% (vs the S&P 500 index’s FCF yield is about 3.7% and Toyota of 0.8%).

Something needs to happen. The stock hasn’t done anything since its IPO except the nice dividend of 4.3%. Nevertheless I’m confident in GM.

Fiat Chrysler

I don’t have much to say on Fiat Chrysler (FCAU). It’s a favorite for certain part of the value investing community. I know Mohnish Pabrai likes it a lot was an important holding of his for years. I think Sergio Marchionne was a good CEO. He was focused on capital allocation and has a famous presentation on the topic: FCA Presentation – Confessions of a Capital Junkie. Basically the message was the industry has not earned its cost of capital over a cycle and consolidation is the answer. Which explains why he was always trying to sell itself to GM, Ford, and whoever was interested, which confuses me. Spin this, buy that, sell that, split this etc…they are not mergin in Peugeot. Will Americans buy French cars? Peugeot and Fiat trade for just 5.8 times and 4.9 times estimated 2020 earnings because nobody cares.

Car operating profits
Sergio wouldn’t be happy with these numbers.

Fiat Chrysler has some good brands. I think the RAM and Jeep are strong and could be stand alone. But the main problem with Fiat is that they are behind in the EV game and R&D. They are behind in playing catch up.

Charlie Munger DJCO – Los Angeles – Homeless

I’m currently on the road to L.A. and going to San Diego. I want to thanks the new followers to the blog. I recently got a “surge” in traffic and new followers despite not posting anything new in a couple weeks. Thank you for following.

Charlie Munger

I attended the Charlie Munger Daily Journal AGM. It was a good one. They even had breakfast this year. Not sure if it was Peter Kaufman or Charlie’s idea to put up with the bill. The number of attendees is growing every year which explains the change of location. This year’s location was in a conference room attached to at the Cathedral Plaza in downtown L.A. This plays well with the cult behavior of the people following Charlie Munger because they are definitely not there for the Daily Journal yearly update. I don’t minimize the impact of cult like behavior. People flew from all over the world, mostly China, to hear him talk, even though it’s broadcast online. Some people can’t ask him a question without a one minute opener on how much they love the guy.

Charlie is 96 years old. I found him to be in better shape than he was two years ago last time I saw him. He was steady and solid throughout the two hour meeting.  It’s too bad that he doesn’t stick around after the meeting anymore. The meeting is way too big now. A couple years ago he used to linger around a little longer after the official portion of the meeting was over and field all kind of questions. The best part was that he was unfiltered. People are a little bit looser when you know you are not on camera. But with cells phones these days, you are constantly being watched. You can find some of the old videos of the after-meeting circulating on Youtube. I don’t think Munger wanted this to be online for the world to see. Despite the recordings being enjoyable, that was also the last time he did it. Anyway that would be impossible to do today, the meeting is way too big.

Regarding Munger’s wisdom, there was nothing you didn’t already know. It’s like going to church. You know what is going to be said. It’s just good to hear it again. It’s re-centers you.  Munger talks about rationality, expectations, circle of competence, and of course a good meeting is never completed without an Elon Musk joke.

I’m currently on the road. I wish I could elaborate with notes and everything. But everything is already online.

The best part of these meetings is regrouping with some value investor friends. I also took the occasion to have dinner with insurance investors to pick their brain.

Los Angeles

It’s my second time in the city and realized I’ve barely seen the city. Everything I’ve done is around three city block in downtown L.A. I wish I had an extra day just to be a tourist to dig into everything L.A. has to offer.

L.A. is a weird city. It’s basically a bunch of boroughs looking for a city. It’s sprawled out in every direction. You can lose two hours just going from one neighborhood to another. People identified themselves with their borough. Normally a big city has a downtown. That downtown becomes the center of gravity. That’s where things are happening. That’s where people want to go. Except for L.A. It was built differently and it grew very rapidly. L.A. does have a nice downtown that is recently “renovated”. You can hangout downtown now but I don’t think people live here. Basically if you visit L.A., you don’t spend a lot of time downtown. You go to the different boroughs, like Hollywood.


Any major city has a homeless problem. L.A.’s homeless situation is a major homeless problem. I almost crushed one walking because he was the same color as the sidewalk. It was a last minute miss. I heard about the L.A. homeless problem in the news. But when you see it with your own eyes it really hits you. It’s really bad. It has moved from big city “inconvenience” to its society’s problem. Everybody is affected by this. It’s everybody’s problem.  The sidewalks are covered with tents. They are micro communities inside a community. I saw a guy with a broom dusting the sidewalk in front of his tent. Another one seriously working out. Some of these tents are actually pretty nice.

I don’t know what the solution is. It’s easy to point out the problem. It’s much harder to solve it. My guess is the majority of the homeless can be helped. They don’t want to be on the street. There’s also a minority of homeless that have serious mental issues. They need serious help. This is a community problem, a city problem, a state problem, a national problem, a global problem. It’s not a “other people problem”. It’s our problem. The homeless situation seems to have gotten worse since last time I was here in 2018. I don’t think it’s going in the right direction. Why so homeless many in L.A.? Look at it this way. If I was homeless, I would also be in L.A. also. Everybody wants to be in California. There are just too many people here.

What can we do? It’s a WE. We need to come together and work on solutions. They just can’t move. If it’s a drug problem, we can help. If it’s a health problem, we can help. If it’s a job problem, we can help. Can we build a mega social housing complex with running water and electricity? The solution can then be applied to other cities. It’s not easy, but sometimes a problem can be turned into a positive. It’s the old saying, in a crisis there are opportunities. Munger talks about when you inverting the problem to solve it. Invert, always invert.

San Diego

As I’m writing this I’m on my way towards San Diego. I’m taking the Amtrak train down and I heard it’s one of the nicest scenery train ride in the U.S. So far so good.

Tesla Cybertruck Questions

Cybertruck drawingIt took me 24 hours to like it. First came the shock, then acceptance, then waking up to wanting one. When somebody does something different there’s usually a strong reaction to it. Trucks are trucks and truck lovers are one fanatic group. The Cybertruck is not for everyone. To me it’s the modern day version of a green Hummer. And if you haven’t seen, the truck launch was must-see TV. Great marketing coup.

A EV truck is a step in the right direction. Look aside, the Cybertruck has a lot of room. There is more room in EV because there is no internal combustion engine taking up space. The batteries in an EV are typically in the floor. That’s one positive for EVs that consumers might not typically consider. GM and Ford are coming out with a EV truck soon. Rivian, a EV truck maker, is one coming out too (I think they are 50% owned by Ford but not sure).

I would like one but I’m not there yet. There are some unanswered questions. You won’t find me put a $100 to be on the reserve list. I want to wait a while to see how things play out. I’m that way with everything. First generation of anything is usually buggy. Let the fanboys find imperfections. Look at Ford and GM, they have been making trucks for decades and they are far from perfect.

The analysis in me comes out and start to question everything. Why can’t I leave it alone and just enjoy the show? Here are some of my concerns.

  • Is the Cybertruck even road certified? It seems so far to be one of Musk’s pet projects. There are a few safety concerns.
  • Where are the mirrors? I though the law required mirrors.
  • Same thing with the door handles. I think you need handles on the outside in case people are trap inside. (I know this because one of my first cars didn’t have a handle on one of the back door and I needed to fix it to have it road certified.)
  • Same goes with the not so bulletproof windows.
  • Musk made much of the Cybertruck cold-rolled stainless steel body. The steel body that won’t bend is a cool feature but isn’t that more dangerous then soft body? Today’s cars are super soft but very safe. During an impact it’s the car that takes the damage, not the passengers. Back in the good old days, two cars made of steel would slam into each other and barely have a scratch but the people inside would be dead.
  • Stainless steel is heavier than aluminium and than carbon fibre. Don’t you want the vehicle to be lighter? You already have super heavy batteries.
  • Stainless steel requires a lot more care than a coat of paint. How do you repair it?
  • Tesla’s finance are shaky. Tesla is burning a lot of cash. It’s current financial position doesn’t radiate confidence. A whole post could be dedicated to Tesla’s financials. Some analysts believes the stock is a $0, others think will go up 10x.
  • Production is expected to start in late 2021. If we learned anything from Tesla, it will be delayed.
  • Towing is important for truck people. Tesla’s base warranty doesn’t cover deep water, presumably because of the battery packs. Many people with boats know launching the craft requires backing into water.
  • Maybe Tesla is not going after the hardcore truck people. Maybe the appeal is to “influencer crowd” like celebrities and the “look at me” crowd. The Cybertruck might be the Hummer for the green millennial generation, a virtue and vice signaling machine. Plus most truck owners don’t use their truck for trucking. The truck is on asphalt 99.9% of the time.
  • The Cybertruck lacks aerodynamics because stainless steel is hard to work with. This can’t be good for mileage.
  • The price points seem too low considering all the promises. The price points seems to be around the same as a Model 3. The stainless steel is expensive to produce. The amount of batteries it will take is not cheap. Is this going to be a profitable vehicle or a market share grabber?
  • How much is it going to cost to get this venture going? How many millions, or billions, will it cost to get this new and costly manufacturing processes? What’s the return on investment on this R&D, factories, and tooling equipment required for the truck? Are they going to build a new tent?
  • The stainless steel unibody limits the Cybertruck to a highly capable 6-seater pickup and nothing else.
  • The biggest disadvantage for a unibody design is customization. With a traditional body on frame design, a manufacturer can build anything that a customer wants. It can make it a single/double cab, or a long/medium/short bed. An F-Series can be a two-wheel drive F-150 that can only tow 7,500 lbs or a Super Duty F-450 that can tow north of 30,000 lbs. The Cybertruck can’t be customized in any such way without redesigning the entire chassis for each application.

I will wait. There are too many unknowns here. Musk has a history of over-promising or let’s just call it like it is — complete fabrication. On the other hand, it’s good to have a strong vision and to aim for the sky, or space in his case. After all this is a guy who started a EV car company from scratch and is sending rockets in spaces. But you also need to be careful. Let’s wait for the “finish” product.

Early results show Cybertruck might have wider appeal than many predicted. To be continued….


Aramco, the state-owned oil giant is seeking to raise between $24B and $25.6B by selling a 1.5% stake.

Valuation is an art and not a science…how does a valuation estimate have a $1 trillion range! Bank of America put the valuation of Aramco at $1.22 trillion as a low case scenario and $2.27 trillion as a high case…a huge gap that’s more than enough to fit the combined market capitalizations of Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron, the world’s three largest publicly listed energy companies. French bank BNP Paribas said it’s worth exactly $1.424394 trillion…

I see what’s going on here. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman strongly believes that it is worth $2 trillion and it’s generally not a good idea to disagree with him. You can without sacrificing too much of your integrity say “we think it is worth between $1.22 trillion and $2.27 trillion” or whatever. Then if it turns out to be worth $1.22 trillion you can say you were right (it was in your range!), while you can also tell the prince that you agreed with and supported his valuation (also in your range!).

I’m also wondering where is the upside? How do you go from $2 trillion to $4 trillion? I see a lot of risk in this investment. They are having a hard time getting foreign institutions on board. Aramco has struggled to attract a major cornerstone or anchor investor. It has been written they are getting local billionaires to back it. The fact that they are getting listed on the local stock exchange instead of New-York or London is not helping. I can list a laundry list of issues they have to address before submitting any paperwork in the U.S.

You can read the prospectus here.

WeWork – “If something can’t go on forever, it won’t.”

WeWork became the butt of jokes, a dramatic fall from grace for the company. In a matter of weeks WeWork went from a *$47 billion valuation to possible bankruptcy to being bailout. There was no lack of criticizing during the IPO process. All you need is one red flag to stop you from investing. WeWork’s S1 IPO document was printed on red flags. You know the rest of the story; the IPO never went through and Softbank came to the rescue. WeWork founder Adam Neumann received $1.7b payoff to leave company he tanked. How much do you hate the guy to pay him $1.7 billion to leave?

*$47 billion valuation: I disagree with that $47b valuation. Not because somebody paid the last price it is worth that price. There’s a difference between price and value.  I’m myself guilty of saying it’s was worth $47b but it wasn’t and never was. It was priced at $47b. What you had there is not price discovery. Price discovery is when you have a bunch of sophisticated investors knowing all the facts trade among themselves. WeWork’s price should have never been this high in the first place. WeWork is a testimony of our current investing climate.

Because investors have so much money to invest and because of past success stories of stocks of revolutionary technology companies doing so well, a lot of these unicorn companies don’t have to make profits. Investors are chasing dreams and throwing money at anything. The WeWork fiasco has shaken the industry. Some VCs are not asking for a clear plan to profitability. Eventually the tide will turn and people will see this emperor has no clothes.

Renaissance Medallion Fee Structure

I wrote a previous post on Renaissance Technology here. You can get the book The Man Who Solved the Market here.

“Today, Mr. Simons is considered the most successful money maker in the history of modern finance. Since 1988, his flagship Medallion fund has generated average annual returns of 66% before charging hefty investor fees—39% after fees—racking up trading gains of more than $100 billion. No one in the investment world comes close. Warren Buffett, George Soros, Peter Lynch, Steve Cohen, and Ray Dalio all fall short.”

Five and Thirty

5% management fee and 30% performance fee, that’s the fee structure of the Medallion fund.  Is that the world’s most expensive hedge fund? Relatively speaking, the standard fee structure is two and twenty and there’s a war on driving those fees down. We can safely say that Renaissance has earned their fees.

Of course the book doesn’t reveal the secret sauce. However we know that Renaissance is using very complex algorithms, fancy computers and a lot of leverage.

And no you can’t invest with Renaissance.

Amazon Quebec??

When Quebec PM Legault talked about a ‘Quebec Amazon’, I brushed it off as just another remark to please the Quebec nationalists listening. Most of these remarks are politician hyperbole that can easily be disregarded.  Then the news became headline in the ROC (Rest of Canada) and then I realized they are serious. Premier Legault is open to the creation of a Quebec version of Amazon, which his economy minister Fitzgibbon described as a way to serve nationalist customers. Fitzgibbon went further than the premier, saying the province could “absolutely” invest in a Quebec platform, as long as it was sustainable. So they definitely discuss it. It’s interesting to note that the announcement comes only a couple days after Amazon announced a new $1 billion investment in Montreal.

What does a Quebec Amazon even mean? Whatever they are thinking it kind of sort of exists and it’s absolutely brutal: it’s called shooopping.ca and it’s really bad. I will spare you the link and your time. Shoooping.ca was founded by tech columnists François Charron, his version of David taking on Goliath. I can’t help to notice that it’s full of made in China goods.

I don’t know where to start on how ridiculous the idea of Amazon Quebec is.  I get it; you want to help Quebec retailers against the online threat. Wrapping yourself in a flag might be a noble thing to do, but if the widget you are selling is $50 more than on Amazon, you are not helping yourself or anybody. What will help Quebec retailers is reviewing their business model, their brandings, marketing, their performance and strategy. Online shopping shouldn’t be a threat but a tool to thrive. Maybe the government can offer assistance on helping them make the transition online. There are things the government can do but creating a Quebec Amazon is ludicrous.

Amazon is a behemoth. It’s the global leader in online retail. It has infinite amount of things to sell at great prices and they deliver really fast. All of this cost billions to create and Amazon is not that profitable. You can’t just create a new “Amazon”. How do you create a nationalist website for a few million people? Retail is extremely tough, competitive, and the margins are low. If you end up with good margins, a competitor will take them from you. Amazon spends billions each year in new warehouses, enhancing delivery and customer experience. It’s very difficult. The Canadian retail landscape hasn’t adapted well to online shopping. To play the “Canadian nationalist” card, we have the Canadian Tire stores. Canadian Tire only recently started shipping at home but with a catch. It will cost you a lot in shipping and it will take a while to get your stuff. As a test, buying a snow blower on Canadian Tire would have cost me $100 in shipping while Amazon ships for me with Prime.  The reality is that the cost in distributing, IT, and logistics is massive for such a small population to serve. Amazon can scale.

The premier told reporters he is concerned about the lack of Quebec-made products available on Amazon and wants to make sure the company isn’t just selling American products to Quebecers. Amazon is also a platform that invites third-party brands to sell their own products on its website. Quebec retailers can participate on Amazon “marketplace” and have access to the millions of Amazon clients. Walmart also operate marketplaces including third-party sellers. In Canada Loblaw is launching its own third-party marketplace which is an indication of the growing competition.

If it was that that easy everybody would just have their own Amazon, iPhone, and Google search engine.


Being a parent just cost $8.99CDN more per month.  Disney is joining the streaming wars. Netflix used to be the only game in town. Now everybody is going over the top. AppleTV, HBO Max, NBC’s Peacock etc…How many streaming services do you need? I’m not sure if cutting the cord makes financial sense anymore. You end up spending $200/month to save $100/month.

Is going direct to consumer the right decision for Disney? I think so but this is a multi-year plan. We will know in five years. Disney+ signed 10 million users the first day. Some analysts estimated that it would have taken a year to get there. They aim for 90m in by 2024. Netflix has 150m users. By entering the streaming war, Disney is giving up on a lot of easy licensing money. Companies are paying the big bucks for content.  With 90m users, Disney+ will rack in ~$630m (90m*$7) a month, ~$7.5 billion a year.  I wonder what the margins are on that and the multiples the market would warrant.  By ending the studio’s output deal with Netflix, Disney forgone $150m annual income (easy licensing money). That deal was signed a long time ago and would have to be substantially renegotiated upward.

Disney is now they are entering the tech war arena. Amazon, Google, Apple spends a lot on capital expenditure (CAPEX). Disney spends around $5 billion annually on CAPEX. Compared to Amazon $15b, Google $25b, and Apple$10b. This year, Netflix content budget is expected to reach $15b.

This is a different game for Disney.  Disney spends large sums of money on studios and rides that last decades. By entering the streaming services war, it will require constant spending just to stay in the game. The Mandalorian reportedly costs $15 million per episode, while The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, WandaVision and Hawkeye could run as much as $25 million per episode. Disney is now on “technology treadmill”. Companies on the tech treadmill have to run harder and harder just to stay in place. It is a treadmill that is difficult to get off of. If new content helps gain subscribers, then logically cutting spending, and content, risks losing them too. There’s a saying in the investment business: “Never invest in anything that eats or needs repainting.” The question is does your potential investment have the margin structure to afford the yearly cost? Technology can provide a competitive advantage, but you have to have the right margin structure to maintain that advantage – to afford the food and paint.

I believe Disney is successfully transforming its business to deal with the ongoing evolution within the

media industry. I think Disney has the muscles to grind their way for market share but not everybody in the space is going to be a winner. They have terrific content, a great global brand, and technology with Disney streaming (ex BamTech).

While on the topic of subscription, how many is worth subscribing to? Everybody is switching to a subscription model. Everybody wants $5 from you. $5 is a good number. There’s no psychological pain is losing $5. Everybody has $5. Mario Kart Tour is $5 a month. Apple Arcade is $5 a month. Even Burger King has a $5 a month coffee service. If you are not careful eventually those things add up.

The Man Who Solved the Market – Jim Simons

A new book about the most successful money maker in the history of modern finance is out and it’s not about Warren Buffett. It’s about a guy named Jim Simons and his firm Renaissance Technologies. He started investing in his 40s and didn’t anything about the topic.

The book The Man Who Solved the Market: How Jim Simons Launched the Quant Revolution by Gregory Zuckerman is released today. It’s one of those books that is highly anticipated. You can read and except from The Wall Street Journal here.

The book is a coup because Simons shuns the limelight and rarely gives interviews. It’s great that Gregory Zuckerman succeeded in getting Jim to talk. Rumors about his performance has swirl around for years but the real numbers are much higher than anyone anticipated.

Today, Mr. Simons is considered the most successful money maker in the history of modern finance. Since 1988, his flagship Medallion fund has generated average annual returns of 66% before charging hefty investor fees—39% after fees—racking up trading gains of more than $100 billion. No one in the investment world comes close. Warren Buffett, George Soros, Peter Lynch, Steve Cohen, and Ray Dalio all fall short.

Simons ranked second on Institutional Investor’s list of top-earning hedge fund managers in the world last year, and first the year before and the year before that, despite the fact that he  retired in 2010.

For the occasion, I updated my links about Jim Simons and Renaissance Technologies in the resource section. I plan to read the book and post my notes when I get to it.

Jim Simons (Renaissance Technologies Corp.)

The Intelligent Investing Podcast – Brookfield Asset Management & Cultural Activism

The Intelligent Investing Podcast – Eric Schleien

I had the pleasure to be back on the The Intelligent Investing Podcast with Eric Schleien.  Full show notes below.  If you are listening in a car or simply taking a walk, try these links:

After many weeks of back and forth, we finally got this episode done and it’s a big one. We mainly talked about the Brookfield Asset Management 2019 Investor Day that they held in New-York. We both attended the event as first timers and we share our take ways from the meeting. We also branched off and talked about cultural activism, Facebook/Instagram, Sears and malls, investing in India and China..and we could have talk a lot more. If you are interested, the whole event has been recorded is available with presentations here.

Brookfield (BAM) is a very interesting company. Only of few companies can do what they do. It has been one of my most successful investment and my bullish stance on it has been reinforced. Their business is only going to get bigger and more profitable over time. I’ve written and talked about BAM in the past if you are looking for a primer. If I ever get to it I plan on writing an article with my about the Investor Day. For now we have the podcast.

Show notes, links and summary by Eric: Continue reading “The Intelligent Investing Podcast – Brookfield Asset Management & Cultural Activism”