A good outcome does not automatically validate the decision-making process, as luck plays a significant role. Howard Marks stresses the importance of intellectual humility in recognizing that a successful result could have stemmed from wrong reasons or randomness, a crucial distinction for repeatable success.

Related Insights

During due diligence, it's crucial to look beyond returns. Top allocators analyze a manager's decision-making process, not just the outcome. They penalize managers who were “right for the wrong reasons” (luck) and give credit to those who were “wrong for the right reasons” (good process, bad luck).

Successful individuals and companies don't experience more fortunate events. Instead, they excel at capitalizing on positive serendipity and navigating negative shocks. The narrative of "luck" is often a psychological crutch for those unwilling to take responsibility for their reactions to life's inherent volatility.

The best leaders act on incomplete information, understanding that 100% certainty is a myth that only exists in hindsight. The inability to decide amid ambiguity—choosing inaction—is a greater failure than making the wrong call.

Housel cites his book's disproportionate, unexplainable success in India and Brazil as evidence that most viral phenomena are attributable to luck. This serves as a lesson in humility for creators and businesses, suggesting that trying to engineer or replicate massive viral success is often a futile effort.

The entrepreneurial journey is a paradox. You must be delusional enough to believe you can succeed where others have failed. Simultaneously, you must be humble enough to accept being "punched in the face" by daily mistakes and bad decisions without losing momentum.

Even a top-tier sales professional has a career pitch win rate of just 50-60%. Success isn't about an unbeatable record, but a relentless focus on analyzing failures. Remembering and learning from every lost deal is more critical for long-term improvement than celebrating wins.

Howard Marks argues that declaring uncertainty is a sign of strength, not weakness. In important settings, saying "I don't know" signals that your ego is in check and thinking is robust. It makes people trust you more, not less, because it shows intellectual humility.

Post-mortems of bad investments reveal the cause is never a calculation error but always a psychological bias or emotional trap. Sequoia catalogs ~40 of these, including failing to separate the emotional 'thrill of the chase' from the clinical, objective assessment required for sound decision-making.

Founders who succeed by randomly trying ideas rather than using a systematic process don't learn repeatable skills. This lucky break can be detrimental, as it validates a flawed strategy and prevents the founder from learning the principles needed for consistent, future success.

Howard Marks highlights a critical paradox for investors and forecasters: a correct prediction that materializes too late is functionally the same as an incorrect one. This implies that timing is as crucial as the thesis itself, requiring a willingness to look wrong in the short term.