Every active investment is a claim you are smarter than the market. This necessary arrogance must be balanced with the humility to constantly ask, "Is it me or the market that's wrong?" especially after long periods of underperformance. The key is knowing when your arrogance is deserved versus when it's blinding you.
If a stock has gone nowhere in three years, the probability is high that you, not the market, are wrong. The host notes his biggest losses come from holding a declining thesis, where a "great company" slowly devolves into a "restructuring play" as he rationalizes holding on.
When one stock like Nvidia comprises over 7% of the S&P 500, choosing not to own it isn't a neutral decision; it's an active short position relative to your benchmark. This forces investors to confront whether they are intentionally betting against a major market trend, even if it falls outside their typical investment style.
The host admits his strict value investing framework—looking for "spinoffs trading at four times cashflow"—created a mental block that prevented him from investing in the AI boom, despite seeing its potential. This shows how overly rigid investment models can blind you to generational opportunities that don't fit neatly into your process.
Investors seek inefficient markets to find bargains, but the reality can be frustrating. As seen in the London market, you can identify deeply undervalued assets, but with no catalyst for re-rating, the value remains unrealized. This creates a trap where your thesis is correct but your portfolio consistently underperforms.
After selling a stock for a solid gain, it's tempting to dismiss its subsequent massive run-up as unforeseeable luck. A more rigorous post-mortem involves asking if your process is flawed. Are you getting impatient and selling before the thesis fully plays out, or was the initial situation you invested in truly resolved?