Fund_GM

One of the biggest time sinks is “watchlists” of names that never convert into positions and usually never will. Analysts updating models, reading earnings, listening to calls on companies they’ve followed for years but will never have a position in. It looks productive. It feels safe. It gives structure through each earnings cycle and gives the impression you're on top of things.

Investing is a job where you can do a lot of busy work, but get little of value done. What are the biggest time wasters you’ve observed ppl do? Curious analyst vs PMs, keeping in mind some things that are wastes of time to some may not be to others. Some thoughts below:

Attended a trading conference yesterday listening to investment banks discuss the minutiae of stock execution to a mostly fundamental audience. Always feels like the wrong conversation. It’s like club golfers debating Pro V1 vs Pro V1x when the real issue is how the club head is striking the ball at impact. For most fundamental investors, the edge isn’t in shaving a few basis points on execution. It’s getting the idea right. And more importantly knowing when to close the position. Just focus on hitting the ball better.

Martellus Bennett said Tom Brady adjusted his game to his teammates. Most QBs run their system and expect everyone else to adapt. Great PMs do the Brady thing. They adapt to the analysts and market they have. Average ones just keep running their playbook.

My wife sets the AC in the car to 64 deg when she wants it at 70 deg. Similarly, she also sets the oven to 450 when she wants it at 350. I know she's not alone in this behavior.

Jocko Willink talks about the difference between garrison leaders and battlefield leaders. Garrison leaders thrive in meetings, structure, and well-prepared plans. Battlefield leaders are often quieter but excel in chaos, uncertainty, and real-time decisions. Markets have a similar divide. Many analysts operate more like garrison leaders. Their edge is depth of analysis, preparation, and narrative. It’s credible, but they’ve never been on the front line and it shows. Successful PMs tend to look more like battlefield leaders. Once the position is on and the tape starts moving, the environment shifts. Process, conviction, and ego all get tested in real time. In the end, it comes down to judgment.

I know a few podcast guests personally who sound brilliant but are mediocre investors and questionable people. Yet I still listen to the next episode and treat the guest like an authority. Gell-Mann Amnesia but for podcasts.

@benleo_econ @ben_golub @pangramlabs x.com/fund_cdm/statu…

@ben_golub @Fund_CDM @pangramlabs @ben_golub question. What's your strike rate in calling out if something is AI slop?

Some people seem unsettled that a Substack like Citrini can move stocks. For years, markets reacted to “Goldman upgrades” and "Morgan Stanley downgrades" as if the institution had spoken. In reality, it was often just Mike, 32, Drexel grad, updating a model and sending a note. The logo made it feel institutional. Big banks were the newspapers of finance. They controlled research distribution the way legacy media controlled journalism. Now it feels like podcasts versus traditional TV and radio. Different channel but the same mechanism and maybe HR at the banks weren't the best at identifying the best potential analysts. Joe Rogans of finance will emerge from Substack.

The best PMs and analysts are often the ones who don’t take offence at being wrong. More broadly seems to be a pattern in a lot of successful people that they can handle rejection, criticism, or failure. It’s all lumped in to being able to separate yourself and your ego from the outcome. But when monitoring PMs and analysts it can be a real tell.

If we’re comfortable judging a CEO’s ability to run a business from afar, we should be equally open to scrutiny of how we run capital and build a portfolio. If you believe you can evaluate decision makers, you should also be comfortable being evaluated as one. Accountability has to cut both ways.

@FangYi11101 @pangramlabs @ben_golub Maybe I is an AI

@pangramlabs @ben_golub @Fund_CDM Somehow it’s more disappointing when you realize human fingers typed those words

@anistotle_ Excellent article! Hats off.

@Fund_CDM It's vibe laundering time, people! This is a good point of view that also shows the shift in responsibility - institutions have legal duty of care, Joe Rogan doesn't, so what happens when Joe Rogan moves markets w his takes? I wrote about it here - x.com/anistotle_/sta…

Fair point. Sell side analysts operate within compliance frameworks. That creates guardrails. But they are also solving for corporate broking, secondary offerings, and management access. The incentives are never neutral. Substack has different incentives. Not necessarily better. Just different. We once treated the NY Times and BBC as unimpeachable arbiters of truth too. Marshall McLuhan was right. The medium is the message.

@Fund_CDM The problem is Mike has to be careful about how he framed his reports, comply with regulations that sell siders have to which ensures a baseline of honesty or get fired. Cit doesn’t have to do any of that.

Very good point. You hear your own voice more than anyone else’s. Most investors mistake introspection for self awareness. They are not the same. Introspection reinforces the story. Observation watches the behavior. The smarter you are, the better you get at persuading yourself. Which is why it helps to have someone you trust to observe you clearly.

Never mistake introspection for observation.

The Winter Olympics curling event is like a geopolitical shock. Suddenly everyone understands strategy, angles, and sweep technique. A few days later, it vanishes from collective consciousness.

Google Maps walking time estimates are like markets 20 years ago. Loads of easy alpha. Keep a steady pace and you can beat the ETA comfortably. Driving time estimates are more like markets today. Fully optimized. Traffic modeled. Everyone has the same data. You can change lanes and take shortcuts. But you're still arriving within a minute of the estimate. The trick is not trying to out drive everyone else. It’s finding a different approach altogether.

In fundamental discretionary investing, the dominant risks are behavioural and interpretive. They require observation, not just quantitative measurement.