Peter Mantas on Ideas Driven by Innovation and Societal Tailwinds

December 14, 2021 in Diary, Equities, Featured, Full Video, Interviews, Invest Intelligently Podcast, Latticework, Latticework Online, Member Podcasts, Transcripts

Peter Mantas, General Partner of Logos LP, and John Mihaljevic, Chairman of MOI Global, recorded a fireside chat for Latticework 2021.

Peter and John explored the topic, “How Innovation and Societal Tailwinds Create Investment Opportunities”.

Companies mentioned include Planet Labs, Biodesix, IonQ, and Renalytix.

This conversation is available as an episode of “Discover Great Ideas” and “Gain Industry Insights”, member podcasts of MOI Global. (Learn how to access.)

Listen to the conversation (recorded on December 13):

printable transcript
download audio

The following transcript has been edited for space and clarity.

John Mihaljevic: I am delighted to welcome to Latticework 2021 Peter Mantas, a general partner at Toronto-based investment firm Logos LP. Peter is well-known to many in the MOI Global community because he has shared his wisdom and insights with members on several occasions. He has assorted business and financial experience with global institutions and holds degrees in both law and commerce. What has strongly impressed me about Peter is his views on technology, emerging technologies, and innovation and his ability to identify compelling investment themes as well as investment ideas.

At our conferences, Peter has presented multibagger ideas such as Zscaler. We’ve also had the pleasure to talk about some major tailwinds, such as quantum computing and biotech. I thought it would be fitting to invite Peter to join us at this year’s Latticework conference to talk about how innovation and societal tailwinds create investment opportunities. Welcome, Peter.

Peter Mantas: Thank you, John. It’s good to be here.

Mihaljevic: I thought we’d structure our conversation into three main buckets. First, we can talk about true innovation such as quantum AI and genomics. Secondly, we can touch on societal tailwinds – housing development, life sciences, communication, etc. Lastly, we can consider some other questions or topics. Let’s start with true innovation, how you think about it and what you’re finding particularly interesting in the major areas you’re looking at.

Mantas: Maybe I can even backtrack and talk about how we view innovation broadly. At a high level, I think one of the best ways to think about innovation is to think about the creative outputs a capitalistic economy creates. In looking for innovation or investments in innovation, we typically try to follow the Pareto principle or Price’s law. The Pareto law indicates that 90% of the output of any given organization is generated by 10% of the workforce. Those similar features – Pareto and Price’s law – are not bugs of capitalism. They lead to inequality, something capitalistic societies aren’t very good at solving, especially right now, but that is a feature of capitalism, and because of it, it’s a feature of innovation.

We try to look for companies within the respective verticals that exhibit Pareto principal characteristics. You can realize that fairly quickly just at a high level. Once you’ve divided that out into the curve – the Pareto distribution relative to creative output – you can start diving deeper into the companies that might be the best positioned to win in their respective fields.

For example, if you look at the semiconductor industry, 80% of semiconductors are created and developed by the top 20% of chip makers. If you look at the top 20% of chip makers, about 90% is done by the top 10%. In GPU power, it’s really Nvidia. It’s the same as computing. Of global cloud computing, 85% or 90% is done by the top 10. You can see that with cloud right now. In cloud infrastructure, it’s three companies – Google Cloud, AWS, and Azure.

What’s hard about innovation or innovation investing is that there are many losers. There will be a lot of institutions or market actors that will be on the lower end of that curve and will not make it out in time.

If we look at something like quantum as an example, it is already experiencing a Pareto distribution – 90% of quantum power and qubit output right now is done by 10% of the companies, and it’s essentially six companies. The industry is going to start forming in that way. The ones with the biggest leads will start to accelerate their advantages over time.

For example, going public is one advantage. This is what Pareto talks about where advantages start to compound over time. Going public is a major advantage, but it could be something simple. It could be access to the capital market or access to talent by partnering with a research university. Over time, as those things become more apparent and are strengthened, you get to see where the winners are.

Where it becomes problematic is more dependent on the market you’re in. This is where rigor analysis is required – qualitatively and quantitatively. It’s about (a) what kind of price you’re paying for those leading in the distribution or the ones that may come up and also enter in the top 10% and (b) whether that distribution is static in any way. If we look at smartphones, not too long ago, Apple was not in the top 10% of this market. One has to be a bit more rigorous in terms of their analysis, but typically, that’s how we view innovation. At the end of the day, innovation or investing in innovation is about identifying the creative outputs that will drive the economy. If you’re dealing with such outputs, they will all fall under Pareto distribution – all of them. That usually is a good start when looking for innovation.

I’ll give you more recent examples. Take the Metaverse. If this truly becomes a large industry, you’re already seeing who might win there. Facebook will probably be there as well as Unity and Epic, which are already a duopoly. Maybe Microsoft and Google. Another challenger that we don’t know yet might come in. Within the Metaverse, there’s a various number of potential other outputs, derivative outputs, and various verticals.

The main idea is that when we look at innovation, it’s a function at a high level, looking at the Pareto principle and identifying from there the qualitative and quantitative aspects that might lead to more fruitful investment.

Mihaljevic: Let’s delve into each of the three main areas. We recently did a call on quantum. Could you share your latest view on how that’s evolving and whether anything has changed since we spoke?

Mantas: Quantum is an interesting vertical because it’s so, so early. Strides are being made every day getting it closer to being a reality, and it is a reality to a degree, but having a truly functional error-free computer that’s better than the best supercomputers is still a little off. However, the advantages being created within the quantum framework are starting to compound fairly rapidly. Within quantum, there’s a number of ways that one can achieve functional quantum computing with low-error and great fidelity. Certain methods are better than others.

I’d say the quantum industry is very akin to the semiconductor industry. You’re going to have the Texas Instruments of the semiconductor industry, the Intels, and then the Nvidias, which are higher-powered, higher-end chips. It’s the same with quantum. There’s going to be ion trap quantum methods. There’s going to be cold atoms and various kinds of ion traps, for example, what Honeywell is doing. There are going to be superconductor methods. It’s more of a function of diving deep into each one and understanding where each one will play in the global economy.

If anything will fall under a Pareto distribution, it will be quantum because it’s extremely difficult to develop a quantum computer and very costly to attract talent. There are only so many quantum physicists in the United States or globally and only so many universities with the capacity to have that kind of research done at a decent level. There are only so many governments that have proper grant initiatives or programs to allow for research in quantum. It will play out over time, but it’s still quite early in its journey.

Right now, IonQ is the only public quantum. I believe Honeywell spun out a division which is in quantum through a merger with Cambridge Quantum. That might go public next year. I think Rigetti is going public next year. You’ll have a few coming out as well, but it’s still quite early in its phase. I guess the best way to think about the industry is as almost akin to the semiconductor industry.

Mihaljevic: In terms of AI, I feel like it’s a bit connected to quantum or will clearly benefit from that tailwind. How are you thinking about the impact of AI? To what extent do you see it as investable?

Mantas: You’re right. AI is very tied to quantum. At some point in the future, quantum will provide better AI. There are two ways to think about playing with AI. Inherently, an algorithm isn’t worth anything. What’s worth is the data. Google owns a lot of data, and a recent de-SPAC, Planet Labs, has 100 times the data of its nearest competitor in terms of images of the earth. It’s certainly one way to do it. What are the data plays for that? The second is what companies are leading the charge in machine learning.

You could look at companies in certain verticals. Every organization will have AI capabilities in its software or its solutions. For example, Bentley Systems, which does infrastructure software, uses AI for identifying certain cracks in foundations and things like that. Google uses AI for certain workflows. Microsoft will have an AI component for its own cloud computing. It’s extremely difficult to pick out an AI company. It’s more what verticals you think AI would benefit the most and which ones already have the lead in AI.

I don’t see why Microsoft wouldn’t be a leader in AI in the computing world over the next 10 years. I don’t see why people wouldn’t have an establishment in AI there as well. I also don’t see why certain other potential cloud vendors might use AI in either infrastructure, monitoring, or things of that nature. AI is a harder one because it’s more the tools used to create better products or services rather than someone owning AI as an industry. That’s how I would view AI in that respect. It’s something that all companies are working on and will have a need for in the respective services they provide to customers.

Mihaljevic: It sounds like you don’t believe in a generalized AI where basically only the biggest companies with the biggest AI R&D budgets would be able to compete. You see it as more broadly distributed.

Mantas: Yes, I think it does depends on the kinds of AI workflows we’re talking about. For example, AI in the healthcare or bioinformatics sectors will look quite different from the AI for computing workflows, for DevOps, for data infrastructure, or for reliability or observability. All these providers do have AI as a solution to better their services.

I think the big incumbents will be pretty well versed in AI. They’re going to make strong efforts in AI. Microsoft is going to be a leader in cloud computing and any AI workflows. Even if another competitor comes around for a certain application which is more AI-focused, is Microsoft’s cheaper bundle is going to be good enough? It’s more of a tool within these vertical sectors rather than this company is a leader in AI. At the end of the day, it’s just an algorithm. What matters is the data. The one that has or controls the data will be a valuable company. The tools or the algorithms used for AI may be sufficiently complex, but I don’t see any clear leader other than whoever is in computing.

Quantum may enter and make AI sort of super AI. That is more a function of the vertical where quantum is rather than the AI market, so to speak. There might be different verticals within AI, for example, the basic useful AI you have today all the way up to super complicated AI. Other companies we don’t know yet might also operate there in the future, but I’d be surprised if large incumbents don’t already trap those basic algorithms to provide those solutions to their customers.

Mihaljevic: Do you see any existential threats to humans from AI, or is that science fiction?

Mantas: Interesting question. I think it’s a bit too early for that. If there was to be anything, I don’t think it’d be in our lifetime. It certainly is possible. I know Elon Musk has talked about this at some point, and some others have sounded the alarm about the future of AI. What solutions will be used as the brains of a robotics company creating lifelike robots certainly is something almost Terminator-esque, but we’re still very far off from that happening, in my opinion. Right now, I don’t think we’re in a position to properly assess any real risks.

Mihaljevic: Touching on another vector of true innovation – genomics. Help us understand that a little better.

Mantas: Biotechnology in general is going through an interesting period. I just wrote a study indicating that it’s getting increasingly expensive to create a drug, and the peak sale of that drug is declining. Not only are companies spending more to develop a drug, but the fruits of their labor aren’t as long-lasting as they think.

There are companies out there using AI, for example, biosimulation of clinical trials or virtualization of trials. There’s a company called Flutura, which is, I think, owned by EQT Partners or a big chunk of it is anyway. Imagine taking the risk out of doing a clinical trial by having an AI machine learning platform that mimics the human body and what reactions humans will have pertaining to the chemistry or the organic compounds that interact with human biology. That reduces the risk in biotechnology and makes businesses better.

Companies like Schrodinger do physics-based simulation. What would it look like when certain molecules interact with each other over a particular time frame or in a particular compound? What would that feel like? How would that interact?

There are a few simulations in this space that do help pharmaceutical companies reserve the cost for the genomics or even biotechnology costs. There’s synthetic biology, which is something quite fruitful and looks highly promising. It helps in getting a vaccine very quickly and is real. There are certainly some innovations under the radar creating an interesting tailwind. The first would be biotech companies that become platform companies. Imagine you have a CAR T-cell therapy company, which is basically gene therapy for certain kinds of T-cells for autoimmune disease. Why have one disease when you can have a number of diseases and potentially viruses, or an antiviral or vaccine that helps a number of diseases in oncology, like neck cancer, throat cancer, and HPV?

You’ll start seeing companies have platforms in their biotechnological processes. They may use other things to assist them in reducing the cost of that process. The biggest risks in biotechnology or genomics are the regulatory aspects. Even picks-and-shovels companies like West Pharmaceutical, Thermo Fisher, Danaher, and Repligen are extremely innovative in their processes, solutions, and services.

For example, West Pharmaceuticals has one of the most complex supply chains in the biotech space. The company can deliver 40 billion components a year. To do this, you need to have pretty outstanding computers and technology to fill that supply chain and provide a needed service to biotechnology. People think of West Pharmaceuticals as a syringe company, but it’s more than that. There’s innovation we don’t see going on in genomics and biotechnology, and I believe it will lead to a biotechnology renaissance.

The Pareto principle applies to that. If we look at simulation software, 90% of it is done by 10% of certain software providers, five of them, in fact. If you look in the biotech industry, 80% of the research done goes through Charles River Labs. West Pharmaceuticals is responsible for 70% of the global packaging and delivery in the syringe market, and 80% of the infrastructure provided to healthcare companies is from Thermo Fisher and Danaher.

The Pareto principle is already applying to those technologies and innovations, but there are things going on under the surface that will lead to a very interesting next 10 years in biotech and genomics. Synthetic biology is one, but there might be other things that deal with longevity or oncology and certain immunotherapies.

For example, we haven’t seen a treatment for brain cancer in 20 years. The currently available treatment is for one kind of brain cancer. As of 2021, there are already a few candidates in the market, I wouldn’t say for curing but for extending the life of patients with other kinds of brain cancers. There are companies that also assist in drug delivery to the blood brain barrier. There are some innovations happening under the surface that will play out in genomics and biotech, and they are so vast. It doesn’t have to be just genomics. It could be many verticals within genomics in the biotech landscape.

Mihaljevic: Generally speaking, it seems that stock prices have underperformed in the sector. Where are you finding the most interesting risk rewards?

Mantas: There are two things. I haven’t seen this wide of a gap before between big cap – or big cap tech even – and biotech small cap. The SPI underperformance to the QQQ has been an absolute anomaly. There are reasons for that, but I haven’t seen it this bad even in the innovative companies that have sold off.

It could be for a number of reasons. It could be emerging market risk or a legitimate company that destocked and grouped with the other stocks. It’s hard for me to name sectors because everything is situational, but healthcare, some verticals in biotechnology, certain companies, and medical technology are sectors where the valuations are starting to not make sense. Even in some of the de-SPAC you’re getting low single digit valuations and price next year sales, next year revenues, even three-year EBITs, some of them have EBITDA-positive or gross margin levels that are high. Some are trading under one time next year’s revenues.

Things that have been hit in healthcare because biotech catalysts are at nine-year lows. There hadn’t been an FDA head for nine months before Biden appointed one a couple of months ago. There’s obviously recession risk. The yield curves are flattening. People are panicking that there’s going to be an immense amount of tapering, and if there’s an immense amount of tapering in a period of potential deflation, that’s not great. That sells off the entire group. Then there’s small-cap or mid-cap companies in a variety of sectors that could be undervalued based on future cashflows. Some things remain deservedly expensive even after a 50% or 60% drawdown, but as of now, I’d say there is some real value going on in some of these smaller-cap companies that are getting crushed.

Those are the areas I will be looking at. It’s hard for me to paint a broad stroke and say this entire sector is cheap. Biotech in general is at almost nine-year lows in terms of valuation, multiples, and the number of stocks trading below cash, but there are some expensive companies within that sector as well.

Mihaljevic: Among the names you’ve mentioned in the past are Biodesix, Bluebird Bio, and Renalytix. Do any of those strike you as particularly interesting to take a look at?

Mantas: Biodesix is interesting. It got hit tremendously for a few reasons. The first is building out a sales team. The second is that all the pulmonologists have been closed due to Omicron and the number of variants of COVID. The business is meant to test in the pulmonology channel, in the clinician channel. With this constrained, the stock price starts to go down, not to mention that it’s fairly illiquid as well. We think Renalytix is an interesting one at these levels. It may continue to sell at some point. The company leverages AI to serve the solution it provides.

It’s more about what kinds of catalysts we can see in the future and what price we can pay for them. Biodesix is currently trading at two times revenue. Even if we back out COVID tests, look at a pulmonology channel and assume the company hits its salesforce infrastructure, then we talk about pretty substantial returns over the next five years, let’s say. Renalytix is the same thing. It got a government contract this year. It’s being rolled out to Mount Sinai Hospital, and various hospitals are signing up partnerships with companies like Baird. I believe that might be coming up soon. It’s all relative on the valuation. What does the future cash flow look like? What does the future revenue growth look like to the price you’re paying today? Those are a bit more attractive.

The gene therapy stocks can be hit or miss. Bluebird spun off one of its divisions, and it’s going through a bit more of a transformation, which will be tough for shareholders for a while. However, the places I’d be looking at are more in that space where they were impacted by COVID or by a certain kind of channel when the stock price declines and the valuation isn’t demanding.

Another one is ClearPoint Neuro, where 90% of revenues currently are in the operating room. It is obviously going to be impacted by COVID and also by the lack of biotech catalysts because it has a number of partners where it delivers drugs in the blood brain barrier. I believe the stock is down 60% to 70%, but if you look at the analysis – like the laser business alone – if you stop at the 12 times multiple on next year’s revenue, it’s not that expensive. Competitors like Intuitive Surgical or Edwards Lifesciences are trading at 13 to 23 times this year’s revenue, so there’s value there.

It may require patience. Everything requires patience, but we’re now getting to a point in the market where valuations are bordering on irrational, and the spread between large caps and small caps is getting too wide. There will be returns made from things that haven’t been dealt with in biotech or in some of these de-SPACs. There will be winners. It’s about going through the ones that – quantitatively and qualitatively – might come out of this unscathed and see growth over the next little while.

Mihaljevic: Let’s switch gears and talk about the second big bucket here – societal tailwinds and the opportunities they are creating. What are some of the major tailwinds you’re seeing and how are you looking for opportunities?

Mantas: I think life science is very interesting. Coming out of COVID, we’ll start seeing more importance placed on the infrastructure of healthcare. I believe companies like West Pharmaceuticals and Thermo Fisher will continue to outperform. Those tailwinds won’t go anywhere. They’re going to be almost too big to fail given the pain and suffering people have gone through with COVID. We’re talking about a virus that isn’t Ebola. It’s not great, but it’s not the worst thing either.

I think we’re going to look back at this almost like 9/11, where we say, “What does defense look like? What does our national security look like? What does the world look like coming out of COVID? What is the importance of health and supply chain?”

The sustainability of the economies is going to be a major challenge. I don’t necessarily mean ESG. There is certainly ESG and hitting ESG targets, but I mean creating more of a sustainable economy using large datasets. For example, Planet Labs has over 200 satellites floating in space. In fact, half of all satellites in the world right now belong to Planet Labs and SpaceX. Through Planet Labs, you can identify the soy crop yields for every farm in the world, whether or when they require water, the biomass for some crops, the methane being exuded from certain cattle farms, or the carbon density of trees in the Amazon rainforest. This information is valuable for mining companies, governments, consumer-packaged goods, agriculture companies, finance, and insurance. Big data and its use case for sustainability will be a major tailwind. That information will be invaluable for actions in the future.

Housing development will definitely be something. The population is growing and getting older. People want more space. If we’re having a hybrid work environment, people would like more homes. There are also the emerging markets. I’m not talking just about Asia but also Africa. Not many people talk about this. I read a UN study the other day on how poverty in Africa has dropped drastically since 2000. As these people enter into the middle class, they’re going to need solutions. They’re going through a bit of a renaissance as well.

Those are the major tailwinds I see. We can also talk about some headwinds, for example, declining birth rate and infertility. These things are also pretty important and need to eventually be solved for the good of the economy. I would say the sustainability piece and the life science infrastructure are going to be essential coming out of COVID. If we look at North America, it’s big data, housing, and using more sustainable approaches to do packaging and providing services and solutions to customers.

Mihaljevic: Since you mentioned Planet Labs, there’s another de-SPAC in that space, Spire Global (ticker SPIR). If anyone’s going to look at Planet Labs, it may be worth taking a look at Spire as well. I happen to know the CEO, who has attended our St. Moritz event in the past. The company has executed pretty well, but it seems like the market is still very nascent. Spire is losing quite a bit of money. It’s somewhat of a scary income statement, but if you believe in the opportunity and that there’s valuable data to be delivered from space at some point, those companies could start creating real value.

Mantas: Yes, it’s interesting. It’s one of those things that I would say is similar to quantum, but you already are starting to see the Pareto distribution there as well – 80% or 90% of the satellites are going to be owned by 20% of the companies. Also, it’s not cheap to launch satellites. You need several hundred satellites circling the world, mission control, and process systems engineers. Good luck attracting talent from national space agencies. These are the only people who can figure this out.

It’s a fascinating area. There will be winners, but it’s still quite nascent. Nevertheless, you can start to see the business models slowly form. It’s going to be a function of which companies currently have the advantages, which have the most comprehensive amount of data, and which attract the best talent. Once those start to spiral out, like any Pareto distribution, you’ll start to see winners and losers.

Mihaljevic: Can you elaborate on the opportunity you see in housing development? What’s particularly interesting there?

Mantas: I can speak for Canada. Part of the problem in housing in the Canadian context is supply. There are not enough homes for the level of immigration coming in and for the family formation going on in the country. Unlike the United States, where a large part of the country is livable, in Canada, only a certain amount of land is livable.

If the United States and Canada open their borders to more immigration, and people demand more space – because we are working from home and don’t need to be close to the bigger cities anymore – there’s going to be an actual demand for housing, particularly detached housing, and the kind of space required for humanity to sprawl into different communities. That’s put some pressure on the building material commodities – like lumber, which has done very well this year – and that probably will continue over time. There will be also the need for renting and rentals.

The increase in family formation is necessary. It should drive the supply of homes, but housing development in Canada is regulated by the government. There are areas where you can build and certain permissions required, and there is an economic cost to not having proper housing for any given economy. If housing is too expensive, people will take less risk. They won’t start a business or take a job at a startup. They may not spend more on discretionary goods. They may not take a vacation. They may not have enough for retirement. Having such short supply of housing in general is not a good thing. If one believes that more homes will be built – and they should be built because we need them – then that’s certainly a good tailwind to ride on.

Mihaljevic: Let’s talk some more about emerging markets. You mentioned Africa, which is very rich in natural resources. It seems like it’s also becoming a bit of a geopolitical playing field for China and, as always, the US. What’s changing in Africa to make you believe it will be fertile ground for investment as opposed to the past when I’m not sure you could have invested very well as a Western-based investor?

Mantas: It’s still very difficult in Africa. I think what’s made strides is the income level, which has gone up quite a bit in the last 20 years. The quality of life has gone up over the last 40 years. Companies are starting to open up. Google opened up in Kenya. There are quite a few large industrial companies in Nigeria. I believe there’s another tech giant looking at Africa.

There is also the proliferation of communication devices. For example, WhatsApp is an effective utility in emerging markets. It’s something important for Africa and Asia in terms of communication and payments as well. The proliferation of digital and virtual banking and ease of payments into Africa will be certainly awaited to invest.

It’s hard to say. I don’t know what the correct way to invest in Africa is. For example, Sea Limited, which is the backbone of the emerging market e-commerce sector, might make a push into Africa, but I think it’s still a little early to invest in a purely Africa-centric company. I’m sure corporate giants like MasterCard, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft will start investing more in that area than what we’ve seen previously.

Mihaljevic: Let’s wrap things up with our third bucket – other considerations. Anything in particular on your mind?

Mantas: The big takeaway is that at the end of the day, what matters is not only defining winners but also paying a good price for those wanting to invest in this sector. It’s very difficult to figure out exactly what the proper price is. Are investments made today by companies that are losing money flash in the pan, money-burning ventures or durable moats over a period of time? What kind of intangibles does one need to look at to have a better glimpse as to what the future might hold for a particular company? Are these intangibles truly valuable? Are they creating moats or are they just a waste of time?

When going down the innovation spectrum, it will be like a Pareto distribution in every single vertical, whether it’s quantum, genomics, or the space race. Once you realize that and can parse the companies which are already in the lead or may become leaders, as you dive deeper into the qualities, it’s about making sure that you pay the right price. That’s harder than one can figure out, but if you pay a good price, you’ll be rewarded.

About the featured guest:

Peter Mantas serves as a general partner of Toronto-based investment firm Logos LP. Peter has an assortment of business and financial experience at global institutions. Peter’s prior experience includes senior managerial roles at large information service and enterprise technology companies in addition to legal experience within the capital markets, alternative investments and tax groups at McCarthy Tetrault LLP. Peter has also been involved in a variety of private equity transactions, ranging from retail to renewable energy, in addition to leading a proprietary trading team for a boutique desk. Prior to this, he held various economic research positions at the Export Development Bank of Canada, Statistics Canada and other various federal government departments. Peter has both an LL.B. and B.C.L. from McGill University’s Faculty of Law. Prior to studying law he obtained an Honours Baccalaureate in Commerce, Magna Cum Laude, from the University of Ottawa, Telfer School of Management, where he received several awards of excellence.

About the session host:

John Mihaljevic leads MOI Global and serves as managing editor of The Manual of Ideas. He managed a private partnership, Mihaljevic Partners LP, from 2005-2016. John is a winner of the Value Investors Club’s prize for best investment idea. He is a trained capital allocator, having studied under Yale University Chief Investment Officer David Swensen and served as Research Assistant to Nobel Laureate James Tobin. John holds a BA in Economics, summa cum laude, from Yale and is a CFA charterholder.

Dan Lewis and Ram Parameswaran on Disrupting the U.S. Trucking Industry

December 14, 2021 in Diary, Equities, Featured, Full Video, Interviews, Invest Intelligently Podcast, Latticework, Latticework Online, Member Podcasts, Transcripts

Ram Parameswaran, Founder of Octahedron Capital, and Dan Lewis, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Convoy, joined members for a fireside chat at Latticework on December 16, 2021.

Ram and Dan discussed Convoy’s vision and business model and explored the topic, “The U.S. Trucking Industry: A Case Study in Marketplace Economics”.

This conversation is available as an episode of Gain Industry Insights, a member podcast of MOI Global. (Learn how to access member podcasts.)

Replay this virtual fireside chat:

printable transcript
audio recording

The following transcript has been edited for space and clarity.

John Mihaljevic: A warm welcome to all of you joining us for this live session at Latticework 2021. I’m excited about this conversation between my good friend and terrific crossover investor, Ram Parameswaran, and Dan Lewis, an entrepreneur who is revolutionizing — if that word is not overused — the US trucking industry. Ram will say a few more words about Dan and what he’s up to with Convoy, but first I want to give a little background about Ram.

He is the founder of Octahedron Capital, a global growth-oriented investment firm that makes concentrated investments in leading public and private companies that drive the world’s internet economy. Before founding Octahedron, Ram was a partner and portfolio manager at another great crossover firm, Altimeter Capital. Ram has a tremendous amount of experience, both public and private, which informs his investments in both of those areas.

When I want to know what’s going on in terms of companies before they hit the public markets, I look to Ram to tell me what the hottest private companies are right now, and who’s doing some interesting stuff. That’s how we got to Convoy. Ram, I’ll turn it over to you to take it from here.

Ram Parameswaran: Thank you, John. I appreciate you having me and my friend, Dan Lewis, at Latticework 2021. All of the sessions you’ve done so far have been world class. I’ve learned a lot, so I encourage everyone to join in in future years.

I am excited today to chat to my friend, Dan Lewis. Dan is the CEO of Convoy, a company based in Seattle. We’re going to talk a lot about Convoy today, but before Convoy, Dan was one of the senior execs at Amazon. He was at a startup that was acquired by Google, and was a group product manager at Microsoft, so he has the triumvirate of the major companies in the Seattle area. He was a consultant before that and an undergrad at Yale. We bonded when he came over to our house for dinner one time and he stayed overnight on our couch.

Dan Lewis: I’m always trying to save a couple bucks for the company and freeload at your house in San Francisco!

Parameswaran: It’s a pleasure to have you here. I’ve known you for a few years now. It’s impressive to see how you’ve grown over the years and, more importantly, how Convoy has grown. I’m excited to work with you over the next — hopefully — decade or so.

You have this incredible background in technology and supply-chain optimization — most recently at Amazon. You’re a talented person. You could do a lot of things in your life. Talk to me about what got you started. Why did you pursue this particular space? Maybe even better, start by giving us an introduction to Convoy. What do you guys do? What is Convoy all about?

Lewis: The core business that Convoy offers today is full truckload delivery services for companies that are shipping freight in the United States. Approximately a trillion dollars is spent on trucking every year in the US. That’s about 80 percent of total freight spend. The other 20 percent goes to rail, air, pipeline, and ocean. It’s a big business.

The average trucking company has about three trucks. I did the math: I added up the number of trucks that are owned by the top 20 trucking companies, and it came to about 12 percent of the total fleet, so the industry is extremely fragmented. There are about 100,000 companies that ship truckloads of freight around the country. There are about 15,000 to 18,000 freight brokers that are helping truck drivers find jobs and match those jobs up with those shippers. It’s like a trading model where you buy and sell capacity as a broker.

At Convoy, we are changing how it works. In the role of broker, we’re orchestrating a much more efficient trucking system. Our primary customers are the top name-brand shippers in the country: Procter and Gamble, Kraft, Niagara Water, Costco, Target, Shell Oil, et cetera. They hire Convoy to move their freight. We do it through a network of 60,000 to 70,000 small trucking companies on our platform using our app. We orchestrate things so that we create round trips and backhauls, getting them the most efficient job. We created an auction system to do price discovery and to understand what the market is. We effectively clear and create this market for trucking. We take principal risk in the transaction and we’re responsible for the fulfillment of the job.

What we’ve been able to do is go from being a broker to being a national trucking company. The broker gets some of the leftovers or some of the transactional spot freight. We’re not really in that category anymore. We now operate our own fleet of trailers. We have a trailer pool. We have such visibility and connectivity into the truck drivers on our app that our customers have now put us in a new category, which is cool, where effectively we get to compete for all the freight that asset-based carriers would compete for. We’re competing with dedicated carriers.

It turns out that a robust healthy network delivers a higher quality of service than dedicating a truck and a driver to a job, because something can happen with that specific truck and driver, but a network is resilient. We’ve been able to do that business as well. We’ve become a first-class national trucking company for shippers. We do it in a more efficient, higher-visibility, and higher-data way.

We’ve now gotten our platform to the point where it’s big enough and robust enough, and it’s the only platform that has a totally digital supply side. All the carriers and drivers use our app. There’s nobody else right now in the country that has anything close to what we have from an adoption perspective. We’ve now opened it up to other brokers. Our competitors and other brokerages are now able to run on our platform. We recently launched that, and we’ve had a huge number of brokers wanting to use the Convoy platform to find capacity and find trucks that are on a digital network. I think we had 150 inbound leads come in during the first week.

We’re opening it up. We’ve started building in a fuel card and financial services for truck drivers. There’s a whole bunch of businesses on top of that core trucking business that we built, but that’s what Convoy does. We’re providing freight transportation solutions for shippers and then we’re building businesses on top of that — marketplaces and services around that.

Parameswaran: It sounds incredibly complicated. I think that’s what got you going. Leaving Amazon, you wanted to tackle a really complicated market. Is that fair?

Lewis: I left Amazon because I wanted to do three things. One, I want to be part of a story. That’s a personal goal of mine. I want to be part of a growth-stage interesting story. It’s more interesting to work on that. I looked around at the time, and I didn’t see any growth-stage companies in the Seattle area. There were several in the Bay Area I could have gone and joined (I used to live in the Bay Area), but there was nothing in Seattle with the right role and the right thing for me, so I went and started something.

I love the idea of marketplaces. I studied marketplaces in depth before starting Convoy. I also love the idea of a business that can start out as linear and grow linearly, but later become nonlinear. When I started this business, I didn’t have a ton of money saved up. My wife’s not working, and I have two kids. I thought, “How do I create a startup that has an extremely high chance of success?” I realized that one option was to think about a business where it’s not so much about luck. It’s about spending time with each of the participants and explaining to them how we can create value for them, but because it’s so commoditized, in the future it can become a nonlinear, completely digital growth business.

Trucking is that. It’s a B2B brokerage. You can spend lots of time upfront talking to every truck driver and every shipper. You can get the flywheel going and learn the mechanics, but trucking is a commoditized enough industry that you can then automate it in the future so it becomes scalable in a nonlinear way. That was a big part of why I thought it was such a cool space. I saw the opportunity for a high chance of getting it off the ground with the right discipline, but also extremely nonlinear growth through the core and adjacent businesses in the future.

Parameswaran: That’s a good segue into understanding how the industry works. If you’re a shipper, and you need to get your product from point A to point B, how do you do it? What is the process today? Walk us through the unit economics of the model. What were your big customers doing before Convoy came along? What do you provide for them? Let’s talk about the past and the current, and then we can move on to the future.

Lewis: I’ll talk about pre-Convoy and then things we’ve built as we’ve developed it, because there are a lot of fast followers out there as well.

The way these big companies would procure freight is that they would say, “What are the lanes I think I’m going to be running freight on next year?” There are 400 lanes across the country. It could be freight around the LA area. It could be freight between LA and Dallas. What are the lanes I’m going to run freight on? About how many loads am I going to be running per week? Over the next year, what is my estimate there or my forecast? I’m going to do an RFP, which will take six months. I’m going to go out there and do this RFP with dozens or a hundred-plus trucking companies and get all of them to give me bids on the lanes they want. I’ll collect all those rates, go back and negotiate with them, get them to agree on a rate for the year at a certain volume level. There’s a bunch of categories — for some of it, I’m going to have them leave trailers in my yard so I can load those trailers in advance; for some of it, I’ll load the trailers when they show up — there are different kinds of scenarios. All this stuff they’ll put in the RFP.

Six months later, after a bunch of negotiations, it’s done, and the carriers start running the loads. Inevitably, the shipper was wrong. They didn’t know how much freight they were going to need in each of these lanes. They need more in some, less in others. A new store opens somewhere so they have to deliver to that store. A store closes so they don’t deliver there anymore. Their volume changes significantly throughout the year.

The market also changes. Truck rates are volatile. They’re up 100 percent from two years ago on a lot of lanes. The transportation providers then say, “I did agree to this for a year, but I’m not going to do it anymore,” and they stop accepting the freight. That shipper is sending this freight out to the carriers that said they would do it in the RFP, but the carrier or broker that receives it says, “I don’t want to do it anymore.” It falls down what’s called the routing guide. It goes from the primary provider who was the one who said they would do it to a bunch of backups.

All the backups have the option to take it or not. If none of the backups take it at whatever rate they gave a year ago, it goes into the spot market for an auction and it gets picked up there. They have redundancy upon redundancy upon redundancy to make sure somebody actually moves the freight, because they have to move that freight to their customer. Because the world is always changing, all these contracts generally fall apart or are not honored within a few months. That situation was exaggerated during the last two years.

That’s how it worked before. Also, there was no visibility — there was no system for the shipper to see where the truck was. There was no efficient system to book an appointment. You might have a 60-mile job, but the appointment is not for 12 hours, so the truck sits and waits for 10 hours. It’s an extremely inefficient system as you’re trying to aggregate this all together.

What Convoy did is it put all the trucks on a grid and on a map so we could see them all in real time. We built a bunch of technologies that would figure out what is the optimal appointment time for every kind of job and then we’d work with our customers to get preferential access or digital access to be able to add those appointment times. It’s still a hard thing to do, but we started working on that.

We operate within the traditional model, but we created better, new, innovative products at each level of the contract: the primary provider, the backup, and the spot market. That’s why our customers love us.

We created a flexible, universal trailer pool. A company that needs to ship their goods to a bunch of retail stores wants to preload trailers, put them in the yard, and have the trucks roll in, grab the preloaded trailer, and leave. You don’t have to load when the truck shows up. It’s faster and more efficient. You can keep the stuff loaded in the trailers. It’s off your dock, it’s out of your warehouse, you don’t bottleneck everything.

The problem with this is that it’s rigid. You have to tell a carrier, “I need you to do this many loads, have this many trailers available for me.” The carrier says, “I’ll put those trailers there, but I’m not going to flex up. I’m not going to flex down.” It’s pretty rigid. The shippers get stuck because they don’t know how to do this.

We created what’s called a universal trailer pool. We have a Convoy-managed trailer pool. We make it available to any carrier in our network. We also have a technology system that predicts where the trailers will be needed and has a rent-back system. It will find jobs, and help other carriers move those trailers around. We were able to create a flexible trailer pool. Whereas others could only flex up or down by five percent, we can flex up or down by 30 to 50 percent. We can do more or less for that shipper. We can also do spot market and transactional loads preloaded on the trailers. We have a whole system for doing that.

No one had ever done that before. That is a premium product. The margins are probably twice as good as the rest of the business. It’s unique to what we’re building. It’s hard to build if you don’t have a technology system with all these trucks on the grid on the network, and nobody has that right now. That’s sold out all the time. I can’t get enough trailers. (If somebody knows how to get me trailers, please help me!)

That’s an example of what’s different. It’s a better and more flexible system, and shippers need flexibility because they can’t predict their needs. Whenever they get into these fixed situations with their carriers, it’s frustrating for them.

Another issue is you’ve got to set a price for a year, and that’s hard. Those prices fall apart. Rates change all the time and people back out of their contracts and simply stop accepting the freight. We offer a service called Guaranteed Primary, where we say to the shipper, “We’ll always have a truck available for you on these primary lanes. We’ll get better and more efficient over time. We’ll show you the underlying costs. We’ll have a fixed margin so we won’t take advantage of you, but we’ll use technology to float the rate in your system throughout the year. We have a system that can write in new rates. If you’re willing to accept a floating rate, we’ll give you all the benefits of contract — commitment, guarantee, et cetera.”

Other people couldn’t do that because they didn’t have the technology to build a floating rate in real time. They had to have a person work on it for three months to figure out what the rate would be. The floating contract rates system that we built gives our customers the ability to have the same benefits of contract freight — high reliability, always there for them, ability to get to know the same trucking company — but with a rate that can float in real time. For that contract piece, nobody had built something like that before.

When it came to the backups — the situation where the primary provider refuses the job so it goes down the tree to the backup provider — that rate was fixed for a year. Whatever you had bid in that RFP, that’s your backup rate for the year. It would never change because nobody knew how to go in there and change it. We built a technology system called Dynamic Backup. It goes in and inserts new backup rates. When their carrier fails to take the job (which happens all the time), Convoy is there with a real-time price that they can get. It saves them several hours of waiting for it to go through that routing guide and the backup guide. They can just say yes to Convoy right away. We save them a bunch of time in getting a truck locked.

I’m getting a bit in the weeds here, but those are examples of real procurement and operational things we’ve done that are different, in addition to having real-time visibility of every truck, analytics, data reporting and the like, that shippers aren’t used to having from their trucking companies.

It’s been fun. We’ve created strong value at the operational layer and the procurement layer for these companies, in addition to having this robust, visible fleet.

Parameswaran: We’ve been on a journey with you for five or maybe six years now, and during that time, you and your team — and I want to talk about your team in a minute — have put in so much effort throwing out product after product after product. Probably the reason we invested in you in this round is we saw the compounding effect of all the product improvements, and how all the different strategies have come to fruition over the last 12 months. It feels like you’ve come into your own and are seeing incredible growth rates and adoption curves.

Tell me about the team you’ve assembled. One of my beliefs is that talent density drives companies. You’ve assembled a world-class team. How did you attract some of the best people in the Seattle area to work for Convoy? Why can that talent density not be replicated by either incumbents or by fast followers? Also, could you walk us through who the fast followers are?

Lewis: Over the last two years, we have changed out effectively the whole management team. One or two people that are still on the senior leadership team were there before, but there’s been a lot of change and adjustment. We’ve had great people at Convoy since the beginning, but most of these changes have been significant improvements from the perspective of their experience, scope of responsibility, and history coming into the company. I’m proud of that and I feel great about it.

When I was starting Convoy, one of our first investors was Bezos. He’s obviously had experience building a big company with Amazon. He said something to me that I did not understand at all as an early founder. He told me, “You’re going to hit a point where you need to get to the next level and you’re going to spend a year and a half or two years just hiring.” I remember thinking, “I’m not going to spend a year and a half or two years just hiring. That doesn’t make any sense.” He’s continued, advising me, “Lean into it when it happens. Just lean into it. That’s going to matter.”

That’s exactly what happened over the last two years We hit that point. We had several different areas where we needed to stretch and improve as a company. We’ve hired fantastic leadership — strong, cross-functional technical leadership out of Amazon. Mark Okerstrom, who came in as our president, is an incredible operator and financial mind. We’ve hired folks who are extremely capable in each of the different functions. We have a new, strong operations and customer service leader who’s done this at Amazon, Expedia and other companies. It’s going to be great.

The key thing I found for getting people to want to come and do this is painting a story around all of the opportunity in this space, and why it matters. One of our values is “know why”. Why does this matter? It matters for the planet. There’s a huge amount of waste in trucking. The capacity shortage is more about inefficiency than it is about a lack of drivers. The inefficiency is real, and it drives a lot of empty miles, wait time at facilities, and a lot of unnecessary fuel burn. A lot of people care deeply that the work they’re doing every day impacts something beyond their own personal bottom line. There are a lot of options out there, so why not do something that matters. That has been important.

When someone joins our leadership team, I tell them, “You’re going to have great people on your team, but this leadership team that you’re part of is your first team. Here’s our story. Here’s the journey we’re on. Here’s our mission. Here’s what we’re trying to do. This is the narrative of the industry. This is what’s happened, and this is where it’s going.”

We get to play a key role in the disruption of one of the biggest, most interesting, most topical industries in the world right now which is supply chain. For a long time, there wasn’t much disruption or technology in trucking. When we started, we were kicking that off, especially because visibility was there.

Prior to 2015, truck drivers didn’t have smartphones. Prior to smartphones, there was no financially or logistically feasible way to get a device into every truck in the country. An independent driver with one or two trucks running around the country doesn’t want you to mail them a GPS unit. They’re not going to install it. They’re not going to use it. They certainly don’t want seven different units, one from each of the brokers they work with, so that was not even feasible. They didn’t have smartphones until the free phone supplied by AT&T and Verizon was a smartphone on Android or iOS, which happened around 2015.

This was totally a greenfield opportunity. It wasn’t even possible to do this in trucking. We can paint that picture: this is the moment in time when this is going to change the hundreds of billions of dollars that has been spent by people using offline methods — calling, emailing, faxing — to get the information around traditional boiler-room sales models that are zero-sum game, short-term thinking trucking solutions that are very one or the other — either a totally flexible brokerage or a totally rigid carrier. That whole traditional model has worked brilliantly in the past, but there’s a better way. It’s worked historically — we’ve all gotten the stuff we need — but there’s a much better way. There’s a lot of pain we can remove. That was not possible before.

That’s how we sell people. It’s the time for this to happen. Whether a Convoy is here or not, hundreds of billions of dollars is going to shift from the old way to the new way over the next decade. That’s where trucking is going. Why not help write that story and make this happen?

People are excited about being part of stories. That’s what they want to spend their time on if they’re operators. They want to feel like they could be part of the narrative of the industry. We look back and say, “How did supply chain get improved? How did trucking change during its time of renaissance or revolution?” It’s because the technology changed to make it possible, and some disruptive companies got fired up and built that storyline for the industry. That’s what we’re doing, and people get pumped about that.

Parameswaran: Quantify this a bit more because it’s clearly an archaic industry. We all know the big top-line number: 700 billion dollars or so is sent via freight. Walk us through the profit pools in the old archaic industry which is what got you guys excited and let’s talk about the future. What is your economic model? How do you guys make money?

Lewis: There are a lot of models, but the core brokerage model is a model where you make money on the spread. Historically, brokerages have had a spread anywhere from maybe 15 to 18 percent — some were in the 20 to 25 range, some were a bit lower that were doing maybe more long haul, but that was the kind of take rate on the spread. They would buy and sell trucking capacity, and that’s what they kept. The average was about 18 percent when we were starting Convoy. That’s historically where it’s been.

When we started, we adopted the same spread model because it was the fastest and cleanest way to get into the industry. There are additional ways that other companies make money. Every carrier needs a bunch of equipment and a bunch of services, so there are providers who are offering that equipment and those services to truck drivers and small trucking companies, to help them run their business. There are some virtual fleets doing that today. There are a bunch of other service providers that have those tools and services, and carriers are willing to pay for that. There’s direct monetization of carriers and the carrier experience.

Other ways people have made money over the years is through data and software for shippers that help shippers run their procurement processes, track and manage trucks, make buying decisions, try to make efficiency decisions on how they operate their warehouse and do inventory planning. Those are ways historically that people have made a lot of money.

When we look at what Convoy can do, we started with that spread model. As I mentioned, because we have a completely online network of trucks, with tens of thousands of trucking companies and hundreds of thousands of trucks that are engaged, other 3PLs can put their loads into Convoy, which creates more density and volume in our network and helps us achieve our mission. It creates density and reduces waste in our network. It helps them find trucks. They don’t have a digital network and they don’t have the resources to build this technology platform, so they’re using Convoy’s. It’s better for them. They can find a truck that’s more attractive and lower cost through the Convoy platform than they could by calling around.

When we do that, we can take a fee or a spread on that transaction with no principal risk and no downstream operating cost, so it’s a higher-margin business. Also, our carriers think of us as their provider. We’re not just a fin marketplace for them. We are their partner in trucking. They get their freight from Convoy and we pay them, so they’ll work with us on things like credit services, fuel services, and the like. There are other interesting businesses that we can start building, and you have to have that trust and relationship to do that.

When I think about all the opportunities to make money, we have our core approach, which we believe will be successful, but we also believe that there are a lot of additional businesses that are operating maybe more like traditional marketplaces that have a fee structure, or like software businesses, that have high margins.

Parameswaran: To the extent that you are willing to speak about it in an open forum, give us a sense of the financial or operating scale of your business right now.

Lewis: If you look at the revenue run-rate of the business, it’s around or over a billion on an annualized basis coming next year. I think revenue grew 45 or 50 percent this year. It depends on exactly when you’re looking at the timeframe. We have about a thousand employees.

Most of our business today comes from enterprise customers. We have several hundred customers, but there are 50 to 100 large ones where we have a small percentage of their wallet at the moment, so there’s a huge opportunity to grow a lot through our existing customers and build that up. That’s probably the right level to share at. I’ll also say our margins have expanded significantly in the last six months.

Parameswaran: That’s exactly what we got excited about. I don’t want to correct you, but I will — the 45 to 50 percent is actually on the full annual basis, but if you look at the most recent quarter, it is multiples of that, which is exciting.

Lewis: The margin stuff is interesting. People have said, “Well, isn’t it really easy because freight is hot?” That’s true, but we’re trading. We’re trading freight. Our cost structure has gone up significantly, and so we are always taking that spread in the market. It’s actually hard for us to expand margins when truck rates are going up, and truck rates have gone up in a way that we’ve never seen before. They’ve gone up for 16 or 18 months straight, which never happens. If you look over the last 18 to 24 months, in many cases they’re up over 100 percent.

When you have those contracts, as I mentioned earlier, and you are part of the RFP process, that can put a lot of strain on the economics because you’re effectively setting rates. That’s where we had to be innovative in terms of managing our risk and changing our freight portfolio, and creating new programs that de-risk it for us as the market is volatile.

Ultimately, shippers appreciate that because, while they would love to lock a rate in for a year, because it never happens, they end up in a much worse place because people walk away from them. It’s about finding the right balance and not being rigid.

Parameswaran: Let’s look at a case study — I know the case study of Niagara Water, but pick any customer you want. Talk about the journey with the customer. What happens on day one, how do you even procure the customer? We know why they work with you, but once they sign the initial contract, walk us through what the cohorts look like within their customer base.

Lewis: Let me walk through some examples. You can imagine that how this works is different today than it was three years ago as well, because the customer views us differently today.

Home Depot is a good example. I’ll keep it high level because I’m using a specific customer. When we first started working with Home Depot, they wanted to understand this new digital freight space and digital broker space. They put us in the category with the other new digital players, and they had a small amount of freight available for those players to compete for. It’s what the industry would have called the leftovers — parts of the business that other people weren’t necessarily serving directly, so they were willing to see if we could help them out with that small portion of freight.

We started doing that, and in the first year of working with them, it was about getting to know them, building trust, building that relationship, and thinking about ways to break out of being part of this spot transactional niche business that they’d carved out to learn a little about us. We did two things.

First, we said that we could start doing their contract freight. We showed them the data in certain markets. We showed them, “Here’s what our trucking capacity looks like. Here’s how many bids we get per job. We have a lot of reliable capacity in this area, so you can think of us not only as this broker that can do one-off things. We have a lot of reliable and consistent capacity in these markets, so if you work with us, we can come through on that.” In many cases, the on-time delivery was better, the tracking was better, and the visibility was better, so that helped.

The second thing we did to accelerate the process of them growing us within their businesses was we started doing analytics on our data. No other trucking companies were capturing data for every job. We had hundreds of data points because we would capture everything, from when they tendered the freight to us, all the things that happened since then, how many bids we got finding a truck, the rate, geofencing every location check-in along the way, the final outcomes, et cetera. We could correlate all that and say to them, “If you tendered the freight to us this many hours in advance, or in the morning and add the appointment time here, the rates go down by this much.” You can see how the marketplace is working. We can show our customers this and say, “Here’s how the marketplace works. Here’s where you’re doing as well as or worse than your competitors. There are ten other warehouses in your neighborhood that we work with, and you guys are number four out of the ten. Here’s why. If you did these things, your costs would go down to here because that’s what everybody else gets because they do that.”

We were able to do these comparative analyses. They’d never seen that. We were able to show them that not only could we have reliable capacity, but we could learn and help them improve in their business. Then we graduated from niche to where they said, “We’re going to let you start competing with our other providers that you’re not talking about.”

Year two was about demonstrating we could provide consistent capacity for them in a contracted scenario. Then it tipped and they said, “Now we trust what you’re doing. You now have a trailer pool that’s flexible — we’ve never had this flexible trailer pool. We are now going to open 100 percent of our freight to you, and you’re now in your own category. We used to compare you with brokers or asset carriers, but now we don’t even put you in that category. We’ll work with you on a dedicated basis or on a trailer basis or whatever.”

This is a flavor of the discussion over time with our customers. It would take a couple of years — even three years in some cases — to get to the point where you would prove to them through experience that what you’re doing is different and better. They have to see it.

Trucking works differently from a lot of businesses. Let’s say you’re selling Salesforce to somebody. That person is looking at their option set and effectively adopting Salesforce as their one solution for all their employees, and rolling it out. They do a lot of upfront work to make sure it’s the right decision, but once they’ve made the decision, they’re committed, and it’s embedded in their business.

Trucking is completely different. They work with dozens or sometimes even a hundred trucking providers. Getting in the door and getting that first business is not that hard. It’s about getting them to choose to grow with you and make you a strategic partner. The key is not the upfront sales and getting in the door. It’s more about the next year or two of proving yourself and then getting them to adopt you as a strategic partner.

Now that we’ve done this with ten companies, we expect to be able to accelerate this significantly, via references and word of mouth. Someone leaves one company and goes to another company and tells everyone what it’s like to work with us. We don’t have to go through that proving ground as much now, but it still is a cycle of getting someone to change how they thought about the world, going from “I always thought brokers were over here in this little category,” to “Now I’m going to let you compete for the whole pie.” That journey has just started — we’ve seen that change in the last year. That’s why I’m so optimistic that we can significantly grow a lot of our existing customers, because we’re now being put into a different category.

Parameswaran: That’s the entire point. It’s the multiple compounding effect. You have the product development finally bursting forth, and then you have what I call building a reputation also now bursting forth. It didn’t happen overnight. I know that it’s been a painful journey.

Let’s look at the competitive set. Amazon is the biggest shipper in America (maybe the world), and then we have Uber making a fair bit of noise on their freight business, and then there are all the publicly listed freight brokers like C.H. Robinson. First, in terms of the old industry, talk about what you think of them and why they may or may not succeed, and then, talk about what Amazon and Uber are doing specifically. Does that keep you awake at night?

Lewis: This is a great question. Let’s frame it up. The largest provider of truckload services in the United States has a few percent of the market. I was recently interviewing somebody who was at Azure, and I realized that the way they approached the interview was they think about competition every day. They spend half their day thinking about what Google and Amazon are doing.

That’s an orientation that happens when you’re in a highly concentrated market where there are only a few players and everything you do is sized and compared to those other one or two players. You end up developing a competition-focused culture.

That also happens in new categories that are created. Uber and Lyft in a sense created this new category, which became the Uber and Lyft show. Maybe there were one or two others but it was a small set of competitors, and everything would go to those set of competitors from a share perspective.

Trucking is completely different. There is no behemoth. There are some companies that have significant volume, but they’re small in the overall market. Because of that dynamic, and because there is so much spend in this industry, almost all of our energy goes into thinking about what the customer needs. How do I serve my customer? What am I doing for my customer today? How can I make their life better? If we do all that, then we’re going to get more business from them. It’s rare that we end up being limited based on other digital providers.

I don’t think I’ve ever had a conversation with a customer where they said, “I’m not sure. I’m looking at Amazon and I’m wondering how I’m going to divide the pie between you and Amazon.” Maybe once, but I can’t remember that ever happening. Sometimes, they’ll say something like, “C.H. Robinson is on this lane, JB’s on this lane, or TQL or Coyote or Schneider or XPO or NFI or this other broker — I’m working with these guys, I want to see how I fit in and I’m trying to figure it out. ” Those were the conversations with the traditional folks, but it’s such a big market and it’s so fragmented. It’s about customer value — creating clear customer value in the way you innovate, think, and move the industry forward, versus obsessing over how you position against other competitors, because they don’t ask that much. They’re just trying to solve their problems.

I found that situation to be unique to industries like this, versus industries that are oligopolies of a few leaders, or new industries with a couple of new players that are inventing an entirely new category. It becomes zero sum. Trucking is not that.

Within that, the companies that I compete with on a daily basis are the ones that I just mentioned — other big freight brokers and asset-based carriers. That is 98 percent of the conversations with my customers and what they’re thinking about. Then there are the new companies. There are some new digital providers and then there are the bigger ones like Amazon Freight and Uber Freight. (I won’t get into the legacy and history there — I have deep legacy ties with both of those projects and I have some interesting stories to tell over a beer some time.)

They’re very different. For a long time, I was thinking more of Uber as an innovative competitor. They’re still doing some interesting things. They’re doing a lot of positioning now which you can see from their announcements.

Let me step back for a moment. If our customers are working with Uber — that is one I do see — that’s better. That means they’re going to do a lot of work with Convoy because it shows that they’re willing to try, and then we can prove that we’re better or we can prove that it works, but there’s so much share that they’re giving everybody else, it’s not like Convoy and Uber are vying over some small portion of share. We’re both taking share within their business, and they’re excited about the new way. The customer doesn’t typically think of it as a choice between Uber or Convoy. They might balance it a little, but especially once you’re in there, it’s not like that.

Uber’s approach has been a bit different. When they were starting, they didn’t start from the idea that every carrier needs to use their technology, and that they were going to create a completely robust carrier marketplace on an app and on a technology platform. That came later for them. That was not their founding story and that was not the first few years.

The founding story was how they could grow top-line revenue of the freight business within Uber as fast as humanly possible before the Uber IPO under Travis in 2018, which never happened. That was the origin of the freight business. It was a third pillar to show growth with no tech, but nobody would have ever checked if there was tech or not.

Later, they built a bunch of tech. They’ve now done that, and that’s great, but it’s a business that had a different origin story and a different growth story. I guess I think of them as a complementary partner in the ecosystem that drives a lot of interest. I like customers that are excited about them because it means they’re going to be excited about Convoy and it gives us a foot in the door, and vice versa probably, but it’s not something I feel like I need to position against constantly with my customers.

Over time, we’ll need to take a look at it. They made a pretty big move to close the EBITDA gap by acquiring a company like Transplace and effectively their burn was, I think, Transplace’s EBITDA. That makes sense. That will be a challenging operational integration to work on if you’re trying to be an innovative, fast-moving tech company, because I believe that the number of employees that the other company has is greater, so it’s a big challenge. It gives them more volume. We’re keeping an eye on it, but I don’t think it made any strategic differences. No customer has ever asked me about how that’s going to change anything. It’s never come up in a customer discussion.

When it comes to Amazon, I think I was asked the question first in 2016, about whether Amazon would do this someday. The answer is always yes to that question. Of course Amazon is going to do it someday. Ask any business that question, and the answer should be yes, because they probably will do it someday. That’s the culture of the company.

They certainly have gotten the freight space. Again, it’s not something that comes up in conversations with our customers. I know that they’re building a business around this. Fundamentally, it started because they wanted to have a way to have additional capacity for their own business. They wanted their carriers to be on an app. They tried to build an app and asked their large carriers to use that app, and for a long time, the large carriers were not interested in using the app. I knew that going in, that they wouldn’t use it, because the large carriers don’t want an app on their drivers’ phones.

When the realized that wasn’t working, they decided to build an app and put it on a bunch of smaller carriers. Now, they’re building a business around that. It’s a smart move. It will give them flexibility. They need to have their own supply chain to deliver their own goods in a highly reliable way with visibility. They couldn’t get visibility from their providers. The big trucking companies and brokers they work with don’t have a great data-driven visibility platform for Amazon. Amazon’s standards are high, and they want that.

They want the world to look like Convoy, if they could get that. That’s what they want. They want that experience. They’re trying to find driver pools that will use a piece of technology on their phone, so they can have visibility into what’s going on, and operate their business better. One of the ways you do that in a viable way is you have that group of carriers also do work for others to balance things out throughout the year and make sure that carrier group’s available for your surge times.

I’m getting a bit long-winded on this answer, but neither one of them is a company we spend a lot of time worrying about. We watch what they do and we pay attention, but it’s not something our customers are asking us about, and it’s not the thing that’s going to make it or break it for Convoy in the next five to ten years. What will make it or break it for us is if we execute well and we build value for customers against the traditional incumbents.

Parameswaran: Let’s talk about the next five years for Convoy. What are your personal goals and what are your goals for the company, and — a question that’s on everybody’s mind in this forum — will you go public one day?

Lewis: I’ve never run a publicly traded company. I don’t know exactly what will happen, but when I think about it, I do think there are a bunch of good reasons why Convoy should be public, despite a lot of my friends saying it’s a painful place to be. There are a lot of reasons in this industry to do it. There are a lot of reasons for our employees, and it’s healthy from a compensation, incentive, and alignment perspective.

Our customers are traditional businesses, and they look at that. They ask us that as well. It is something they’re curious about. They believe that it’s a sign of stability and long-term viability. In our business, it does make a difference in terms of how our customers think about and view us and our carrier partners.

It provides access to capital for deals. We’ve never done an acquisition, but as I look at the industry evolving, I can see the future more clearly in terms of where I want to take this, and I can see pieces of other companies coming together around that or other deals. It provides that currency and opportunity.

We have the leadership team to do it now if we want to go do it. I mentioned that Mark Okerstrom has a lot of experience running and operating publicly traded companies. Our general counsel has done this several times. We have a mature senior leadership team at this point, and we’ve built a lot of things that make our systems much more rigorous internally.

It’s probably the right path. I want to realize the potential and opportunity of the company, and that is probably one of the ways to do that. Becoming publicly traded is probably part of the formula for achieving the potential of what Convoy can be.

Parameswaran: I know a lot of your friends are a little gun-shy about going public, but going public is a wonderful idea for a variety of reasons, and you understand that. It gives you flexibility and credibility. It makes you one of the big boys. Despite what a lot of private investors may tell you, the public markets are forward-looking and will give you stretched valuations — maybe a bit of correction here and there, but if you execute, the technology public markets are willing to give you three or four years of runway and valuation ahead of what you deserve.

Lewis: We’re doing some stuff internally to make sure that when the time is right, we are in a position where we can do that.

Parameswaran: Outside of going public, if we were to talk again in 2025, what do you think the scale and the position of Convoy would be at that point within the trucking ecosystem?

Lewis: The way our customers think about procuring and managing freight, the flexibility that they have, and the level of confidence they have in their partners will be unrecognizable from where it was a couple of years ago or even today.

Right now, the reason that these companies have 100 trucking providers and have 90 levels of redundancy is because they don’t have confidence that their partners will come through and have the flexibility to deliver for them, because every partner has one specialty thing that they do in one area, and they can’t flex, and they can’t operate at the same scale. It’s hard to operate that way with offline systems and traditional processes.

When you use technology and you have a network of trucks that are plugged in, you can do things faster and at scale more reliably. You can offer better visibility and planning to your customers, and you can give them data to help them improve. It’s going to be a partnership-based experience where they don’t have to have 50 to 100 trucking partners. They can have a few, and we will be able to offer them flexibility through a range of market scenarios and freight scenarios that will make it so that they don’t have to worry about managing all of their providers to make sure they’re covered. This fear of not being able to get trucking capacity and not being able to manage it is real, because it’s an inconsistent business.

I think it will be unrecognizable. I think Convoy will be by far the strongest, most healthy, most viable trucking option in the country. That’s my goal. There will be others. There are going to be lots of other trucking companies, but people will look at Convoy as the solution that lets them set it and forget it more than ever before.

Part of that is the transparency, the visibility, and the reporting we’re offering that will build confidence and trust. Our customers will see that we’re not going to jerk them around. We’re not going to try to screw them for that extra margin today, which is how most of the compensation structures work. We’re going to build a partnership that is flexible to our customers’ needs and has clarity around what we’re charging. That’s where we’re going with it, and our customers are so excited about that. They want to not have to stress about this all the time.

One of the investors I was talking to was saying, “Don’t shippers never give their carriers more than five or ten percent of their business?” That’s true, but you need to think about why that’s true. It’s not good for them. It’s not easier to have 50 vendors in the same category. That’s a lot of work. It’s because they don’t have confidence, so we’re fixing that.

Parameswaran: That makes total sense. I want to talk about a topic you tweeted about recently, which is your view on how self-driving and automated trucks come into this. You had a proposal for team tagging which I thought was interesting. Tell us about that little tweet you put out — what prompted that and what was on your mind there.

Lewis: The prompt is that I get asked all the time about self-driving. I’ve thought about it for years. There was a period four or five years ago where it was a much hotter topic than it is today.

What I’ve realized is that a lot of folks in the technology world — or maybe in worlds that don’t understand the day-to-day operations of trucking and how it works — tend to have these models in their heads of how self-driving should roll out that I think are theoretically great and that provide a lot of benefits, but that aren’t practical. They won’t work.

If regulators are sitting around thinking about how we are going to make laws for different states for self-driving, if we don’t include certain scenarios and we don’t solve for certain scenarios, we could end up in a situation where the theorists were able to drive some regulatory outcomes that result in a suboptimal operating environment for self-driving, and you won’t see the benefits because it’ll be too hard to make it happen.

I’ll give a couple of examples. Assume that self-driving trucks can operate on the highway but not on back roads and city streets. That’s pretty much a given at this point — that safe highway driving would happen successfully first. Take a 1,000-mile job. There are two models.

One approach is a local driver brings the trailer to a transfer station. The self-driving truck picks up that trailer, runs it on the highway portion with no driver in it, gets to another local hub outside of the destination region or metro, where a local driver picks it up and delivers it. That’s the one that gets talked about all the time — at least in my experience. I’m constantly told that’s how this is going to happen.

I think that is a hard way to do it first. Offline, I’ve gotten a lot of messages from people in trucking who agree with me on this. That model that I described will happen someday, but it’s hard to do that one first. Theoretically, it sounds right because it’s self-driving, which surely means you shouldn’t have a driver in there. If you have a driver in there, you have to pay them, and that defeats the purpose. My feeling is that you incur more cost by not having the driver in there.

The way things already work today is you have this human-to-human tag-team model. It’s a two-driver model where one person is driving, then they stop driving and the other person takes over so that the first driver can go in the back and rest, to reset their hours of service. They must have ten hours off to reset their hours of service. They hand off the driving like this, back and forth, and they can run that truck twice as fast because it’s always moving. It’s a team-driving scenario which already exists and is pretty common. It’s two drivers working together.

I think you should leave a driver in the cab and then that driver should tag-team with the truck. The driver can drive, and the truck can take over while the driver resets their hours of service. Obviously, the technology has to be ready for that to happen. Once the technology is ready for a truck to drive by itself, it certainly is ready for it to drive with somebody in that cab because it’s obviously safe enough at that point where the risk of something happening is no greater than with a human driver. That’s the model that I think is the right model.

It seems that it’s hard for people to see that because they think into the future and they imagine that we can get to this other model that could have other benefits, but it’s so logistically difficult to create those transport hubs. It’s so hard. If you’re interested, you can look at what I wrote about this. There are so many issues with handoffs. You have such limited flexibility in your driving. If there’s no driver in the truck, there will be tons of times the truck can’t actually operate on its own as we’re getting started, and it’ll take forever. I think it’s important that we have a system where the driver stays in the truck for a long time, and we’ll be able to have deliveries done in half the time. It’ll be a huge advantage for the supply chain. It’ll accelerate everything and you can roll it out much faster than if you have a leg where there’s no driver at all on the truck.

Parameswaran: We’ve got two more minutes, so do you have some closing remarks? What’s on your mind these days?

Lewis: I’ll end off by saying that this is definitely where the industry is headed: networks of trucks connected to technology platforms from a visibility data reporting perspective, better matching, combinations of jobs, reducing empty miles, optimization of appointment times, insights and analytics based on the data that help the operators, flexible procurement, flexible trailer pools — that is the future, and it’s going to happen.

I hope Convoy is the one that carries this through. I’m fired up. I believe we’re going to do it. We’re a leader in the space right now. If you’re looking at where you want to make bets, you can bet that this is going to happen over the long term, so it’s a smart bet.

As you mentioned, the last couple of years were tough for Convoy. The market was volatile, but instead of looking to just weather the storm, we went and invented a bunch of stuff. We created new solutions that are in high demand now. We used this as an opportunity to have more strategic conversations with customers, invent flexible solutions, and roll those flexible solutions out.

We’ve never been in a position where we’ve had the kind of control over our margin in our business that we have today. It’s hard. When you’re buying and selling a spread with principal risk, it’s hard in a volatile market. We’re now at a point where we have a much stronger operational system to do that — controls, tools, teams, et cetera. We now have six months of data that have shown the consistent and expanding margins around that.

I’ve never been more fired up. We have systems in place now, our customers like what we’re doing, the industry is going in this direction, supply chain is more important than ever ― there are a lot of tailwinds around where we take this. We’ve got to execute. It’s still hard. It’s hard sometimes to explain this business because it’s a complicated business, but that’s where I am. I’m super fired up, and I think we’re going to take it.

Parameswaran: I agree, and I’m happy to be part of your cap table and your journey. I think you guys are going to be incredible over the next many years. I’ve observed you and Convoy for five years now, and I want to reiterate that for me, what has us so excited investing in you is how those compounding effects of both product creation and now scale and customer love, are taking on a life of their own. Thank you so much, Dan, for your time.

About the session host:

Ram Parameswaran is the founder of Octahedron Capital, a global, growth-oriented investment firm that seeks to make concentrated investments in leading public and private companies that drive the world’s internet economy. Prior to Octahedron, Ram was a partner and portfolio manager at Altimeter Capital, a multi-billion dollar investment firm in Menlo Park, where he helped lead the firm’s investments in the internet and payments sectors, across both the hedge fund and private growth funds. Prior to Altimeter, Ram was the technology analyst at Falcon Edge Capital, co-founded the Internet research team at Sanford Bernstein, and started his career as a senior engineer at Qualcomm. Ram has an MBA in finance from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and a Masters in EE from Virginia Tech.

About the featured guest:

Dan Lewis is the Chief Executive Officer at Convoy. Before Convoy, Dan served as General Manager of New Shopping Experiences at Amazon, as well as Vice President of Product and Operations at Wavii (acquired by Google), and Group Product Manager at Microsoft. Dan started his career in technology and supply-chain consulting for Oliver Wyman, after studying cognitive science at Yale University.

Glenn Surowiec on Value-Oriented Investing on the Right Side of Change

December 14, 2021 in Diary, Equities, Featured, Full Video, Interviews, Invest Intelligently Podcast, Latticework, Latticework Online, Member Podcasts, Transcripts

Glenn Surowiec, Managing Member of GDS Investments, and John Mihaljevic, Chairman of MOI Global, recorded a fireside chat for Latticework 2021.

Glenn and John explored the topic, “Investing on the Right Side of Change While Applying Value Principles”.

This conversation is available as an episode of Invest Intelligently, a member podcast of MOI Global. (Learn how to access member podcasts.)

Listen to the conversation (recorded on December 13):

printable transcript
download audio

The following transcript has been edited for space and clarity.

John Mihaljevic: I am delighted to welcome Glenn Surowiec to this conversation at Latticework 2021. Glenn runs GDS investments which he founded in 2012. Many in the MOI Global community have gotten to know Glenn over the years from his contributions to the community and through my conversations with him. We’re truly grateful to you, Glenn, for making yourself available to share your insights and ideas.

I thought it would be fitting to invite Glenn for this conversation at Latticework because the theme of this year’s Latticework is intelligent investing on the right side of change. I plagiarized that from you, Glenn. I’m sure others have said it as well, but I heard that idea of investing on the right side of change from you. I’d love to talk to you about that, especially as I know that you do so while staying true to value investing principles as well.

It’s not just pie in the sky, “any valuation goes” investing. Rather, it’s about finding companies you believe are positioned to grow over the long term and yet are available at an attractive valuation. Maybe we could start by having you tell us a little about that approach and how you came to embrace that investment philosophy.

Glenn Surowiec: Thanks for the warm introduction! I’m certainly glad to play a role in Latticework 2021.

Let me take a step back. I’ll describe briefly what I do in terms of the companies I try to look for. I’ll also flip that upside down and talk about what I don’t do in terms of companies or situations I try to avoid. Then, I’ll build out that “what I do” section a little from there.

In a simplistic way, the more mature I get as an investor, I certainly look to buy good companies. I’m not looking to overpay, and I’m focused on partnering with talented leadership CEOs – not only leaders who understand the capital allocation process, but who also have a real special culture, a long-term vision and strategy, and who are smart and pragmatic. To borrow a phrase from Will Thorndike, I am looking for that “outsider CEO.”

In terms of what I try to avoid it, it’s a lot of common sense. This isn’t anything I’ve come up with on my own. It’s a lot of reading about what works. It’s also identifying who you are as an investor, where your skills are, where your pressure points are, and where your stress is.

Everyone has their own winning formula. Often, I think about my winning formula, about what I avoid. It’s simple. I don’t like leverage in any way. I don’t sell stocks short. I don’t buy broken businesses and hope that somehow I can do anything about that. I don’t partner with bad management teams. I don’t like overpaying.

It sounds overly simplistic, but sometimes it is, in a way. But I it’s important to put this stuff down on paper. Maybe when you’re in that period where there’s a lot going on and there’s maybe more volatility, it’s always nice to go back to these things you can grab on to.

Building out on what I do – we’ve touched on this in previous conversations – the entire system is geared toward no short-term influences. I still think the biggest edge any investor has is the ability to think or have a long-term orientation. Also, patience is probably the most underrated quality in life.

There are a lot of good stock pickers out there because they have a sense of what’s important to a particular investment – from both a quantitative and qualitative standpoint. It’s the ownership phase that shakes a lot of people out – to just be in a world overly geared toward short-term behavior and certainly everything that wraps around that.

Anything you can do to think long-term is important; that is the spirit of your original question, John.

If I can put the kinds of investments into two general buckets – it’s important to study what I call magical companies – but to do it with a value orientation. These are companies with this great value proposition where it’s a combination of convenience, selection value, and high levels of engagement in terms of the time spent on the platform. You also have a CEO who can carry out the culture and vision; the execution is there.

When you look under the hood at things like customer retention and loyalty and the size of the addressable market, you can see the stars are aligned for a long runway business. In a perfect world, those are the kinds of businesses I want to own for a long time.

To steal a phrase from Jay Hoag from TCV – I think in sports metaphors – it’s like sitting on the sidelines and just applauding a basketball player like Michael Jordan. It’s a long game, but I also think it’s a game few people are able to play.

We’ve talked in the past about how I don’t mind investing in turnarounds. I’m not willing to sacrifice the quality of business, so I’m not looking for businesses that might be under some secular threat and hope that somehow a management team will reconfigure things, hire in a different way, and pivot in a way to create value because I also know statistical headwinds apply to the ability to execute that.

Those were the two buckets of “I like to have” companies, but the underlying ingredient is I must trust management. I want to partner with people I respect and who understand capital allocation in a deep way. But I also want a business that ranges from at least above average to elite.

Mihaljevic: How do you think about change in the world and the types of companies likely to be hurt versus helped by change?

Surowiec: We live in an environment where companies can create an enormous amount of scale quickly. The corollary to that is you can also quickly evaporate a lot of what would have been structural advantages.

It’s understanding the playing field today. It’s being patient but thinking through how the competitive landscape might shift in a favorable but also an unfavorable way. You don’t need to look far to see what’s happened.

Every vertical is almost subject to some level of change. In the last two decades, the poster child vertical is traditional retail where there were structural disadvantages for virtually all of retail. You might be able to make a case like a Home Depot or TJX because of the niche they’re in. It might be hard to push those things online.

But, in general, most of what was in old retail was at a structural disadvantage from a cost standpoint to the extent that you could move that online, not have to deal with the same overhead, and also deliver. Getting back to that three-legged stool I talked about with value, convenience, and selection, you could see how traditional retail was severely disadvantaged.

But you can also make a case when you go through different verticals. You see change in terms of how people consume TV and audio. You see changes in banking. I don’t have a strong opinion about how this all shakes out, but I’m saying if you invest in banking – maybe you’re in a Vive or even a Wells Fargo or even the payment side of it.

A month ago – and I might get some of this wrong. But directionally I’m right – Amazon in the U.K. said it would not accept any Visa credit cards (not debit cards). Amazon said the cost is too much of accepting that particular card payment, and it continues to be a headwind for the larger goal that businesses are after, which is to provide the best prices for their own customers.

That is a situation I would want to understand. Visa and MasterCard are respected in terms of the underlying economics, but are the economics at the expense of its customers? That’s a legitimate question.

That’s something that, even though the stocks have pulled back, this seems to be a headache. This seems to be something people complain about; they don’t like these fees and a lot of people don’t know why they’re so high. There’s all this money floating around in the system. For once, you have a company like Amazon with enough scale to do something about it. But my guess is if Walmart looked at its cost structure, this would also be a source of headache.

I want to be in a value-creating ecosystem or platform. That’s the most desirable thing.

I listen to your podcast, John. A couple weeks ago, you talked a little about consumer product companies. Before people thought companies and the brands associated with them were irreplaceable. Today, people don’t seem to feel that way. A lot of these old stalwarts, these steady Eddy types, have been pushed aside.

Mihaljevic: One name in retail that’s done extremely well is Costco. It’s a favorite of value investors. What do you think about businesses like Costco? Are they on the right side of change?

Surowiec: Let’s unpack that a bit. Costco’s DNA is unique. Even though it’s in retail, Costco is a low-cost machine. It has built something hard to displace in some ways like what Walmart has built. Costco has everything. It knows how to make money at low margins. It has a hiring culture that results in lower turnover because employees can make decent wages even at entry-levels. You can also have benefits. Costco also has exclusive items. The Kirkland brand is in of itself not just a retailer. The Kirkland brand has tremendous value in its own right. It’s only available at Costco. If I owned Costco – Costco is in a different situation, for sure.

The online retail vacuum cleaner will probably go to weaker outfits only because it’s not in my mind, but you can also say it’s like an AutoZone for different reasons.

I try to consistently reverse-engineer companies that have done well. You must be intellectually curious, right? A lot of people talk about Amazon and Netflix. Well, what made them great?

Look at AutoZone. Here is a company that figured out a different formula. It’s in retail, but management did things differently. What is its competitive advantage? It’s been able to drive a lot of margins through private label, but when you need something, you know – because of its large inventory – that AutoZone will have it. It sells something that is hard to move online. AutoZone is legendary for its buybacks. But the fact that it has grown sales in the last ten years at around 50 percent – where per-share results are up 3X simply because the denominator is an impressive story no one understands. It’s used different things – both on the operational side but also on the balance sheet side – to flex its muscle a bit.

There will be winners, but the list of winners will be shorter. A winner must have some special quality to protect itself. My guess is Amazon would rather go after an entirely new industry it sees as disadvantaged versus going after Costco directly. It would be better off applying resources doing the former – not the latter.

Mihaljevic: It’s interesting because investing on the right side of change doesn’t mean completely avoiding some sectors because, even in sectors under threat, there can be great companies able to deliver great results for shareholders. It sounds like it’s worth keeping an open mind.

Surowiec: Absolutely. Costco has lived in this new world where so much of retail has moved online and management has figured out a way. It gets back to my earlier point about partnering with a CEO with a vision – a long-term vision – and who has developed a culture that allows people to think freely because the stuff of business is uneven and messy in many ways.

The average life cycle for great companies used to be measured in generations. It’s not like that anymore. But in some industries, you see a funneling up of companies that were big and powerful ten years ago and which have gotten bigger and even more powerful. Eventually, disruption wins.

Mihaljevic: Yes, and your point that a company in a, let’s say, threatened sector – if it will succeed big, it needs something special. AutoZone and Costco are probably in that category. It reminds me a little of IKEA and how consumers systematically undervalue their own time in assembling the furniture; they don’t price that into whatever they’re paying for IKEA furniture. With Costco, I see it as an almost enjoyable shopping experience.

I wish there were a Costco in Switzerland because I liked going to Costco when I was in the U.S. You have that experience in which the consumer doesn’t even consider a cost versus imagine shipping an average Costco shopping cart by mail and the cost that that would add. There’s your competitive advantage.

Surowiec: Coming back to that three-legged stool, how does the company fit into this idea of delivering value, convenience, and selection? Costco checks all those boxes.

Mihaljevic: Glenn, when you talked about platforms, time people spend, and having a great CEO, I couldn’t help but think of Facebook because of the CEO that Zuckerberg has been in terms of growing and delivering shareholder value over the long term. Is Facebook on your mind? Do you consider it interesting here?

Surowiec: I have a love-hate relationship with Facebook. Let’s break it down. I did own it for a period when it halved at the IPO. It’s clearly a wonderful business. It’s certainly been able to pivot as consumers have changed their habits over time. There was some concern initially about its ability to pivot to mobile. It has such a monopoly on what it does.

I want to own companies that are a win-win for its owners and its customers as well. I don’t feel that way with Facebook. Once I did. I want people to be online, and I understand the entertainment feature, but the educational feature is underrated. A lot of people spend time online, and the idea that you can understand a particular subject or particular person, or you can find incredibly valuable podcasts – that feature is underrated.

I’m a big proponent of making sure it’s like owning your own inbox or whatever – just to bring it down to something people understand. But time is an incredibly valuable resource. I’m sensitive to what I subscribe to, what I listen to whether it’s “This Week in Intelligent Investing” or “Invest Like the Best” or “Business Breakdowns.” I’m sensitive to whom I talk, to what I watch. I look at what Facebook does as a large waste of time.

In one sense, I see it as clearly a great business. I don’t necessarily agree with the role it plays in a lot of important events that happen in our country and how Facebook has become a platform for distorting information. It’s become fuel for some things I’m just not crazy about. Even at its best, it’s a source of entertainment whereas I would rather partner with things that are both entertainment and educational. It just feels better, and I feel better about what I’m doing.

But that’s not to deny Facebook or Meta. It has so many wonderful qualities. If you’re looking at the business, you can isolate or ignore the qualitative stuff; there’s a lot to like about Facebook. It has a virtual monopoly, but I don’t like what it does. Maybe because of that – maybe tobacco is too strong a parallel. I don’t own it now. I’m okay not owning it.

Mihaljevic: What are some companies you would put in that first bucket that you either own, have owned, or are considering owning?

Surowiec: Certainly, Amazon is one; I’ve owned it on and off in the past. Amazon has been a huge net benefit for society both in terms of what it has done directly but also indirectly in terms of forcing competitors to change behavior. Amazon has exposed a lot of lousy economics that have stayed around simply because of an absence of someone who will say, “Well, this is ridiculous.” It’s taken a couple of verticals, and it’s kept prices low. There’s a win-win for the most part. Yes, there might be some suppliers that aren’t overly thrilled, but the amount benefit unleashed to consumers is pretty impressive.

I like to think the Netflix value proposition is a win-win in a lot of ways in terms of a creator audience. Also, consumers feel pretty good about what they pay and what they get each month.

One of my favorite CEOs is Daniel Ek from Spotify. I have a lot of respect for Spotify does. I forget how he described it, but when you mentioned Facebook, this is the first thing that came to my mind. He used the words nutritious and delicious. Facebook is delicious. I’d rather be in nutritious companies, nutritious platform companies. I have a lot of respect for what Spotify is doing. You could say it saved the music industry because the industry was pretty much broken because it was driven by a lot of piracy. The online world – at least initially – had changed the whole distribution business for the worst.

Piracy was legal – at least at the time – in every country except Sweden. Here, you have this guy who said consumers might like it, but it’s hurting the music industry because the money is not going to the creators who deserve it. A lot of money still goes to the legacy model, but he said he wanted both creators and consumers happy. He wanted a value proposition for both. He’s doing that with podcasts and things like that. There’s an opportunity here to create something within that broader audio category.

I listened to your podcast last week about Twitter. I own Twitter. I like Twitter. I use Twitter. Parag is a thoughtful, insightful CEO. Twitter brings lot of value to the table – both from an educational and entertainment perspective. It hasn’t had nearly the success of Facebook in monetizing its user base, but there’s an opportunity. It delivers to consumers more nutritious, rather than delicious, product.

Mihaljevic: Glenn, I’d love to talk a little about valuation and how you think about the right price to pay because I know you’re a value guy. You’ve invested successfully in things like the GE turnaround, which is a very different valuation case than a Twitter or a Spotify. How do you go through that process? What do you need to be comfortable?

Surowiec: Each business needs to be thought about a little differently. The more mature I get, I find that traditional quantitative measures of value tend to be a little overrated. It’s not the right way. It’s easy for people to make judgments from the number side of things. You can screen different companies. Lots of people do that. Computers do that. I don’t know that, as an individual, I will come to the table with any particular insight or edge on the quantitative stuff.

I’ve given more and more thought to the extent that there’s a critical margin of safety. It will happen more with the qualitative stuff than with the quantity of stuff. That’s what I’m getting at. I think about being right about those qualitative insights. If I have a business – if you go back to that original framework where I have something unique and I have something with a long runway – and it is this winner-take-most opportunity – then I would probably be foolish not to move forward even if the company will not screen well in any metric.

I look at price-to-sales more than I look at price-to-earnings. It’s okay in a certain environment if a company is aggressively spending to win an incredible opportunity. I know that, if you reverse engineer a company like Netflix, for example, and you look at its valuation history in the earlier part of the decade – the early stages of the last crisis like 2010 to 2012 or 2013 – it fluctuated between one and five times sales. But it didn’t screen well. It didn’t make a lot of money. It had a breakeven P&L mindset. It had low debt.

But it was investing heavily in becoming this great source of content and pricing its product at a place where consumers wouldn’t sneeze if they had to increase it five or ten percent. The market from 2014 to today revalues it from 3X to 10X. But using Netflix is like the guidepost. Even today, the irony of this is it now has profits. You can say it has a more entrenched moat. It has way more debt, but the market has revalued it much higher.

Would I be comfortable paying the multiple that Netflix has today? Absolutely not. Even though it checks a lot of those boxes from a qualitative standpoint, I’m not paying eight, nine, or ten times sales for a company. It’s probably outstripped what I’m personally comfortable paying.

With that said, I own these companies at lower prices. Let me just put a fence around what I’m about to say. I’m not pitching these today. But, at the same time, if you look at where a lot of companies have come down recently, if these companies weren’t on your radar screen six months ago and you’re now at the point of “hey, a lot has happened over the last six months” – not necessarily like Apple, Google, or Amazon, but maybe that next tier or two down within this great company sphere, like Spotify is down probably 35 or 40 percent from its high.

I have owned it for over a year, but if I were coming up with a list of companies I would want to get closer to – maybe in anticipation of another cycle of volatility – Spotify is certainly a company I would get closer to simply because it’s down so much. It might not be down enough, but it should be a company people are least teeing up for a future purchase.

Twitter is the same thing. I’m not pitching Twitter at $80.00, but it’s down somewhere around $45.00. A lot has happened. I would argue that it’s probably a net benefit. Twitter’s management has put out some decent goals for 2023. That would be a brand with a lot of relevance. The CEO change makes it better. I don’t know what people were looking for.

Microsoft’s Satya Nadella was hired on February 4, 2014. I was researching this because of what happened with Twitter. Not ironically, the low in Microsoft in this last cycle was on February 5, 2014. There’s probably something at Twitter that needs to be looked at closer. My basis is a lot lower, but I follow it relatively closely. There are things there, especially with Elliot and Silver Lake. There’s enough value there. There’s enough change happening – bringing it back to our original theme – where that would be a name people need to look at.

Mihaljevic: I won’t dwell on Twitter because people have probably heard me talk about it enough on the podcast. When you talked about buying versus holding, it sounds like you’re clearly drawing a distinction. The question would be how would you think about selling – would there be something on the price valuation spectrum that would cause you to sell, or would you need to see a change to the fundamental thesis?

Surowiec: Selling is always incredibly difficult. If there is an emerging business in the early stages of attacking a large addressable market, my mindset is that there are exceptions to everything. Of course, position sizing needs to be factored into this. But, generally speaking, I am okay giving that company a long leash because psychology is such that the market will always over- and underprice them throughout its lifecycle. What I need to do is control. I have control over what I’m willing to pay for it, but also during the ownership period, it’s almost inevitable that it will get a little overvalued – even a lot overvalued – but the ability to grow into that and compound at an acceptable rate over a long period of time to me is a far more important determinant.

But there is some art. You must make sure your original judgments are correct. If your original judgments are right about the business and its management and you have a business that’s reinvesting in the core and doing so in a relatively low-risk way and not just leveraging your balance sheet, then there are lots of situations where just being tolerant and patient with those situations will serve you well. That’s where I went.

Other companies just don’t have those characteristics. If you’re a bit down the food chain in terms of quality, then your valuation parameters need to be a little tighter with how you think about valuation.

Mihaljevic: Makes sense. Let’s talk a little more about turnarounds. I’m curious how you think about the success metrics there generally. What kinds of turnarounds have you seen succeed? Conversely, what do you think are the types of turnarounds you wouldn’t touch?

Surowiec: Let me just answer the second question about conditions that I would need to see. I’ll probably just revert to GE as a case study because there’s some news on that and it’s something I’ve owned a couple years.

Turnaround investing is tricky. It’s not like I’m looking for broken businesses and hoping something magical will fix it. I want incredibly capable CEOs with a history. You can look at companies like Tyco when Ed Breen came in. Certainly, Ed Breen had a track record with Motorola. Ed Breen then goes to DuPont. That’s a situation that, if you’re investing in turnarounds and you see businesses put together in a way that doesn’t make sense anymore and are creating the synergies they originally were but you now have a CEO that can see that, then that’s a situation you need to study a little closer.

Decent business just might not be configured and optimized properly today. A CEO can carry out that vision and think about the business in a different way. If you have those things, your odds of success increase.

GE is always fascinating to talk to. It was probably the Morgan Housel quote where he said something to the effect of extreme events in one direction will cause extreme events in another. It’s so true in so many aspects of life. But, in GE, it’s especially true because Jack Welch built in the ‘80s and ‘90s a hodgepodge of companies and it created this conglomerate structure. Each vertical just went out and bought lots of different companies. You had this huge rise of GE Capital.

Then you look at what Larry Culp inherited in October 2018. He’s the first outsider CEO to run GE. He had a different mindset. On one hand you think of Jack Welch building up the company and buying lots of different companies and increasing the earnings reliance on GE Capital as the great risking. On the other hand, Larry Culp did the great de-risking. We’re coming full circle and we’ll have many more chapters now that GE announced in November it would split into three companies.

From an investor psychology standpoint, to be negative on GE today is every bit as criminal as being bullish on them 20 years ago at 60 times earnings when GE Capital made up 50 percent of the business.

As a turnaround investor, I look for a company that is built and has the balance sheet flexibility, has the underlying business strength. But I also look for a company with a CEO like Larry Culp to lead that company down the right path.

I always find it strange. The bear thesis on today equates to this huge lack of patience. You read quotes from different analysts. It’s like investors will have to wait a long time, which is like a year to potentially realize the full value of the transaction. For the whole Jack Welch era, I was just starting out in investing. But I always found it strange that the market was essentially rewarding Welch for the four acquisitions per month. It was rewarding Jack Welch for the rise of GE Capital by paying this outrageous multiple on what it was doing.

Sometimes, the market gives you false signals on both sides. In other words, GE was – in hindsight, we know this, but intelligent investors already knew this – GE was never as good as the market would have had you believe in 2000. Now GE is not nearly as bad as the market would have you believe today. That would be a turnaround worth studying.

Mihaljevic: That’s a great case study. Glenn, before we finish up, I’d love your thoughts on capital allocation and how that figures in this investment approach that you have when you take a growing business like Spotify. How do you think about capital allocation? Is that even critical there in terms of all the alternatives that exist? Or are you hoping those kinds of businesses just reinvest everything or as much as they possibly can in the business?

Surowiec: In the case of emerging growth stories, there’s no right answer. It comes down to whether there is a partnership with management. But, at the end of the day, I don’t have a controlling stack. Nor do I want one.

As an investor, we talked about balance sheet risk. I’m unwilling to take on management risk, but you must accept a little operational drift, if you will. The original vision that you think will happen over three, four, or five years might not happen because companies might pivot in different ways. I want a company with the infrastructure and governance in place so its management thinks of capital allocation like Warren Buffett or like some of our fellow MOI community members.

There are many CEOs who think about what they are doing there. Does it make sense to buy back stock? Or does it make sense to pay a dividend? I look at so many different companies, and I listen to competitors. It’s amazing, frankly, how many times you hear managements say they will buy back stock because they want to offset equity dilution in the employee comp. That’s a ridiculous reason. They also say they will pay a dividend because our shareholders expect it. Maybe that makes sense if you have a mature company where their ability to generate cash far exceeds their ability to reinvest. I get all that.

But if you’re just doing it just to do it, it doesn’t make sense. When you tie those things to the return on capital – an ideal situation is a company that can reinvest capital at a high rate of return. When they can do that, I want them reinvesting 100 percent of their capital. To the extent they can’t do that, then they have some less sexy choices to make.

But it takes a special CEO to pursue the less sexy option because they don’t have enough high return on invested capital opportunities to pursue right now. Maybe they say, “We won’t pay a dividend and we won’t buy back stock because it doesn’t make sense now. But it might make sense when there’s some shakeout here.”

I’m sure the DNA of a company like Danaher leads it to grow, but not entirely organically. Here’s the underlying M&A strategy. I don’t necessarily want Danaher to pay a dividend and I don’t necessarily want it to buy back stock unless its stock is cheap. You might want it to build up cash somewhere like Berkshire knowing it can be redeployed when opportunities arise.

There is no one-size-fits-all mentality. It’s a lot of art. It’s also a huge amount of quantitative work. But, at the end of the day, it’s having this this symbiotic relationship between shareholders and CEO where they’re not locked into any one strategy. They’re just locked into creating value in a responsible, risk-adjusted way.

Tying that back to earlier conversations about how different companies create value, we’ve almost covered everything. We covered companies with a long runway that reinvested 100 percent of capital like Amazon. I just talked about Danaher and Berkshire. They create value in different ways. We talked about turnarounds. We talked about a company like AutoZone where management figured out a different way. They’ve done things that are operational, but they’ve also done things on the balance sheet side that are unique from being like, “Hey, we want to shrink the denominator,” and they don’t pay a dividend.

There are lots of different ways, but all those companies are wed together by the numbers, the maturity, the underlying economics of the business, and the industry they’re in. They don’t try to push too hard and try to do something that just isn’t there based on the underlying business or the underlying industry. That takes some intellectual honesty at the end of the day.

About the featured guest:

Glenn Surowiec founded GDS Investments in 2012. From 2001 to 2012, he worked for Alsin Capital Management, Inc. as an equity research analyst (2001-2003), co-portfolio manager (2003-2008), and portfolio manager (2008-2012). Before joining ACM, Glenn worked for Enron Corp. as a derivatives structuring manager, and for Commerce Bancorp (now TD Bank) as a real estate credit analyst. ​Glenn has a B.A. in Management (Accounting concentration) from Gettysburg College and an MBA (Finance concentration) from Southern Methodist University. He graduated in the top 10% of his MBA class and participated in study-abroad programs both as an undergraduate (Seville, Spain) and graduate student (Melbourne, Australia). Glenn’s interests (outside investing) include running, cycling, golfing and spending time with his wife and three teenage boys.

About the session host:

John Mihaljevic leads MOI Global and serves as managing editor of The Manual of Ideas. He managed a private partnership, Mihaljevic Partners LP, from 2005-2016. John is a winner of the Value Investors Club’s prize for best investment idea. He is a trained capital allocator, having studied under Yale University Chief Investment Officer David Swensen and served as Research Assistant to Nobel Laureate James Tobin. John holds a BA in Economics, summa cum laude, from Yale and is a CFA charterholder.

Ho Nam and Rishi Gosalia on a Buffett-Style Venture Philosophy

December 13, 2021 in Diary, Equities, Featured, Full Video, Interviews, Invest Intelligently Podcast, Latticework, Latticework Online, Member Podcasts

Rishi Gosalia, Managing Partner of SF Value Capital, and Ho Nam, Co-Founder and Managing Director of Altos Ventures, joined members for a fireside chat at Latticework on December 15, 2021.

Rishi and Ho explored the topic, “A Venture Approach Inspired by the Philosophy of Warren Buffett”.

As announced in advance, this session was neither recorded nor transcribed.

About the session host:

Rishi Gosalia is the managing partner for SF Value Capital, LLC. He also works as an engineer at Google. Rishi graduated with a bachelor’s degree in Math & Computer Science from the University of Texas at Austin in 2003. He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area.

About the featured guest:

Ho Nam is a Co-Founder and Managing Director of Altos Ventures, based in Menlo Park, California. Ho is a member of the Altos investment team. Before co-founding Altos in 1996, he worked in various sales and marketing roles at Silicon Graphics and Octel Communications. Ho began his venture career at Trinity Ventures, an early investor in both enterprise and consumer companies, including Starbucks Coffee. He began his professional career at Bain & Company in San Francisco. Ho received an MBA from Stanford University and a B.S. in Engineering with a minor in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Harvey Mudd College.

S2E12: The Future of Brands | Leadership Change at Twitter

December 8, 2021 in Audio, Podcast, This Week in Intelligent Investing

It’s a pleasure to share with you Season 2 Episode 12 of This Week in Intelligent Investing, co-hosted by

  • Phil Ordway of Anabatic Investment Partners in Chicago, Illinois;
  • Elliot Turner of RGA Investment Advisors in Stamford, Connecticut; and
  • John Mihaljevic of MOI Global in Zurich, Switzerland.

Enjoy the conversation!

download audio recording

In this episode, Phil Ordway, Elliot Turner, and John Mihaljevic discuss

  • the future of brands, and how to think about brand value; and
  • leadership change at Twitter, with Parag Agrawal becoming CEO.

Follow Up

Would you like to get in touch?

Follow This Week in Intelligent Investing on Twitter.

Engage on Twitter with Elliot, Phil, or John.

Connect on LinkedIn with Elliot, Phil, or John.

This Week in Intelligent Investing is available on Amazon Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Pandora, Podbean, Spotify, Stitcher, TuneIn, and YouTube.

If you missed any past episodes, you can listen to them here.

About the Podcast Co-Hosts

Philip Ordway is Managing Principal and Portfolio Manager of Anabatic Fund, L.P. Previously, Philip was a partner at Chicago Fundamental Investment Partners (CFIP). At CFIP, which he joined in 2007, Philip was responsible for investments across the capital structure in various industries. Prior to joining CFIP, Philip was an analyst in structured corporate finance with Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. from 2002 to 2005. Philip earned his B.S. in Education & Social Policy and Economics from Northwestern University in 2002 and his M.B.A. from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University in 2007, where he now serves as an Adjunct Professor in the Finance Department.

Elliot Turner is a co-founder and Managing Partner, CIO at RGA Investment Advisors, LLC. RGA Investment Advisors runs a long-term, low turnover, growth at a reasonable price investment strategy seeking out global opportunities. Elliot focuses on discovering and analyzing long-term, high quality investment opportunities and strategic portfolio management. Prior to joining RGA, Elliot managed portfolios at at AustinWeston Asset Management LLC, Chimera Securities and T3 Capital. Elliot holds the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) designation as well as a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School.. He also holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Emory University where he double majored in Political Science and Philosophy.

John Mihaljevic leads MOI Global and serves as managing editor of The Manual of Ideas. He managed a private partnership, Mihaljevic Partners LP, from 2005-2016. John is a winner of the Value Investors Club’s prize for best investment idea. He is a trained capital allocator, having studied under Yale University Chief Investment Officer David Swensen and served as Research Assistant to Nobel Laureate James Tobin. John holds a BA in Economics, summa cum laude, from Yale and is a CFA charterholder.

The content of this podcast is not an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security in any jurisdiction. The content is distributed for informational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice or a recommendation to sell or buy any security or other investment, or undertake any investment strategy. There are no warranties, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or results obtained from any information set forth on this podcast. The podcast participants and their affiliates may have positions in and may, from time to time, make purchases or sales of the securities or other investments discussed or evaluated on this podcast. [dkpdf-remove]
[/dkpdf-remove]

S2E11: Challenges of Forecasting in Business and Investing | Zillow’s Retreat

November 23, 2021 in Audio, Podcast, This Week in Intelligent Investing

It’s a pleasure to share with you Season 2 Episode 11 of This Week in Intelligent Investing, co-hosted by

  • Phil Ordway of Anabatic Investment Partners in Chicago, Illinois;
  • Elliot Turner of RGA Investment Advisors in Stamford, Connecticut; and
  • John Mihaljevic of MOI Global in Zurich, Switzerland.

Enjoy the conversation!

download audio recording

In this episode, Elliot Turner, Phil Ordway, and John Mihaljevic discuss

  • the challenges of forecasting, faced by businesses and investors alike; an
  • thoughts on Zillow’s retreat from ibuying.

Follow Up

Would you like to get in touch?

Follow This Week in Intelligent Investing on Twitter.

Engage on Twitter with Elliot, Phil, or John.

Connect on LinkedIn with Elliot, Phil, or John.

This Week in Intelligent Investing is available on Amazon Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Pandora, Podbean, Spotify, Stitcher, TuneIn, and YouTube.

If you missed any past episodes, you can listen to them here.

About the Podcast Co-Hosts

Philip Ordway is Managing Principal and Portfolio Manager of Anabatic Fund, L.P. Previously, Philip was a partner at Chicago Fundamental Investment Partners (CFIP). At CFIP, which he joined in 2007, Philip was responsible for investments across the capital structure in various industries. Prior to joining CFIP, Philip was an analyst in structured corporate finance with Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. from 2002 to 2005. Philip earned his B.S. in Education & Social Policy and Economics from Northwestern University in 2002 and his M.B.A. from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University in 2007, where he now serves as an Adjunct Professor in the Finance Department.

Elliot Turner is a co-founder and Managing Partner, CIO at RGA Investment Advisors, LLC. RGA Investment Advisors runs a long-term, low turnover, growth at a reasonable price investment strategy seeking out global opportunities. Elliot focuses on discovering and analyzing long-term, high quality investment opportunities and strategic portfolio management. Prior to joining RGA, Elliot managed portfolios at at AustinWeston Asset Management LLC, Chimera Securities and T3 Capital. Elliot holds the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) designation as well as a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School.. He also holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Emory University where he double majored in Political Science and Philosophy.

John Mihaljevic leads MOI Global and serves as managing editor of The Manual of Ideas. He managed a private partnership, Mihaljevic Partners LP, from 2005-2016. John is a winner of the Value Investors Club’s prize for best investment idea. He is a trained capital allocator, having studied under Yale University Chief Investment Officer David Swensen and served as Research Assistant to Nobel Laureate James Tobin. John holds a BA in Economics, summa cum laude, from Yale and is a CFA charterholder.

The content of this podcast is not an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security in any jurisdiction. The content is distributed for informational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice or a recommendation to sell or buy any security or other investment, or undertake any investment strategy. There are no warranties, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or results obtained from any information set forth on this podcast. The podcast participants and their affiliates may have positions in and may, from time to time, make purchases or sales of the securities or other investments discussed or evaluated on this podcast. [dkpdf-remove]
[/dkpdf-remove]

S2E10: GE and the Deconglomeration Push | Kasparov Principle in Investing

November 16, 2021 in Audio, Podcast, This Week in Intelligent Investing

It’s a pleasure to share with you Season 2 Episode 10 of This Week in Intelligent Investing, co-hosted by

  • Phil Ordway of Anabatic Investment Partners in Chicago, Illinois;
  • Elliot Turner of RGA Investment Advisors in Stamford, Connecticut; and
  • John Mihaljevic of MOI Global in Zurich, Switzerland.

Enjoy the conversation!

download audio recording

In this episode, Phil Ordway, Elliot Turner, and John Mihaljevic discuss

  • the pending breakup of GE and whether it signifies the “end of conglomerates”; and
  • the “Kasparov Principle” as applied to investing.

Related Links

GE & Deconglomeration, referenced by Phil

Kasparov Principle, referenced by Elliot

Follow Up

Would you like to get in touch?

Follow This Week in Intelligent Investing on Twitter.

Engage on Twitter with Elliot, Phil, or John.

Connect on LinkedIn with Elliot, Phil, or John.

This Week in Intelligent Investing is available on Amazon Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Pandora, Podbean, Spotify, Stitcher, TuneIn, and YouTube.

If you missed any past episodes, you can listen to them here.

About the Podcast Co-Hosts

Philip Ordway is Managing Principal and Portfolio Manager of Anabatic Fund, L.P. Previously, Philip was a partner at Chicago Fundamental Investment Partners (CFIP). At CFIP, which he joined in 2007, Philip was responsible for investments across the capital structure in various industries. Prior to joining CFIP, Philip was an analyst in structured corporate finance with Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. from 2002 to 2005. Philip earned his B.S. in Education & Social Policy and Economics from Northwestern University in 2002 and his M.B.A. from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University in 2007, where he now serves as an Adjunct Professor in the Finance Department.

Elliot Turner is a co-founder and Managing Partner, CIO at RGA Investment Advisors, LLC. RGA Investment Advisors runs a long-term, low turnover, growth at a reasonable price investment strategy seeking out global opportunities. Elliot focuses on discovering and analyzing long-term, high quality investment opportunities and strategic portfolio management. Prior to joining RGA, Elliot managed portfolios at at AustinWeston Asset Management LLC, Chimera Securities and T3 Capital. Elliot holds the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) designation as well as a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School.. He also holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Emory University where he double majored in Political Science and Philosophy.

John Mihaljevic leads MOI Global and serves as managing editor of The Manual of Ideas. He managed a private partnership, Mihaljevic Partners LP, from 2005-2016. John is a winner of the Value Investors Club’s prize for best investment idea. He is a trained capital allocator, having studied under Yale University Chief Investment Officer David Swensen and served as Research Assistant to Nobel Laureate James Tobin. John holds a BA in Economics, summa cum laude, from Yale and is a CFA charterholder.

The content of this podcast is not an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security in any jurisdiction. The content is distributed for informational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice or a recommendation to sell or buy any security or other investment, or undertake any investment strategy. There are no warranties, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or results obtained from any information set forth on this podcast. The podcast participants and their affiliates may have positions in and may, from time to time, make purchases or sales of the securities or other investments discussed or evaluated on this podcast. [dkpdf-remove]
[/dkpdf-remove]

S2E9: Game Theory in Industries | Companies with Investment Function

November 9, 2021 in Audio, Podcast, This Week in Intelligent Investing

It’s a pleasure to share with you Season 2 Episode 9 of This Week in Intelligent Investing, co-hosted by

  • Phil Ordway of Anabatic Investment Partners in Chicago, Illinois;
  • Elliot Turner of RGA Investment Advisors in Stamford, Connecticut; and
  • John Mihaljevic of MOI Global in Zurich, Switzerland.

Enjoy the conversation!

download audio recording

In this episode, co-hosts Elliot Turner, Phil Ordway, and John Mihaljevic discuss

  • game theory in consolidating industries, and how it fits into investment strategy; and
  • companies with an internal investment function, and whether more companies should pursue it.

Follow Up

Would you like to get in touch?

Follow This Week in Intelligent Investing on Twitter.

Engage on Twitter with Elliot, Phil, or John.

Connect on LinkedIn with Elliot, Phil, or John.

This Week in Intelligent Investing is available on Amazon Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Pandora, Podbean, Spotify, Stitcher, TuneIn, and YouTube.

If you missed any past episodes, you can listen to them here.

About the Podcast Co-Hosts

Philip Ordway is Managing Principal and Portfolio Manager of Anabatic Fund, L.P. Previously, Philip was a partner at Chicago Fundamental Investment Partners (CFIP). At CFIP, which he joined in 2007, Philip was responsible for investments across the capital structure in various industries. Prior to joining CFIP, Philip was an analyst in structured corporate finance with Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. from 2002 to 2005. Philip earned his B.S. in Education & Social Policy and Economics from Northwestern University in 2002 and his M.B.A. from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University in 2007, where he now serves as an Adjunct Professor in the Finance Department.

Elliot Turner is a co-founder and Managing Partner, CIO at RGA Investment Advisors, LLC. RGA Investment Advisors runs a long-term, low turnover, growth at a reasonable price investment strategy seeking out global opportunities. Elliot focuses on discovering and analyzing long-term, high quality investment opportunities and strategic portfolio management. Prior to joining RGA, Elliot managed portfolios at at AustinWeston Asset Management LLC, Chimera Securities and T3 Capital. Elliot holds the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) designation as well as a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School.. He also holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Emory University where he double majored in Political Science and Philosophy.

John Mihaljevic leads MOI Global and serves as managing editor of The Manual of Ideas. He managed a private partnership, Mihaljevic Partners LP, from 2005-2016. John is a winner of the Value Investors Club’s prize for best investment idea. He is a trained capital allocator, having studied under Yale University Chief Investment Officer David Swensen and served as Research Assistant to Nobel Laureate James Tobin. John holds a BA in Economics, summa cum laude, from Yale and is a CFA charterholder.

The content of this podcast is not an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security in any jurisdiction. The content is distributed for informational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice or a recommendation to sell or buy any security or other investment, or undertake any investment strategy. There are no warranties, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or results obtained from any information set forth on this podcast. The podcast participants and their affiliates may have positions in and may, from time to time, make purchases or sales of the securities or other investments discussed or evaluated on this podcast. [dkpdf-remove]
[/dkpdf-remove]

Jim and Abigail Zimmerman on the Philosophy of Lowell Capital

November 4, 2021 in Case Studies, Equities, Interviews, Small Cap, The Manual of Ideas

We are pleased to share with you an exclusive interview with Jim and Abigail Zimmerman of Lowell Capital Management, based in El Segundo, California.

Jim is founder and portfolio manager; he works closely with his daughter Abby who assists in idea generation and other areas of the firm.

MOI Global: Please tell us about the genesis of your firm and the principles that have guided you since then.

Jim and Abigail Zimmerman: We have managed Lowell Capital and Lowell Capital Value Partners employing a proprietary strategy focused on companies with large, sustainable free cash flow yields and “Ft. Knox” balance sheets. Lowell Capital and Lowell Capital Value Partners have compounded capital in the 15+ years since 2003 at about 11% per annum after fees while holding a significant portion (20%+) of capital in cash. We try to take to low-risk approach to investing in public equities, especially in the small cap area.

Jim Zimmerman has over 25 years of investment banking and investment management experience in a variety of industries and has been involved with several billion dollars of investments. He has been a member of the exclusive, invitation-only Value Investors Club (VIC) for over 15 years, with over 50 detailed investment write-ups with an average return of 50%+ and almost all have been profitable. He has an extensive network of relationships with value-oriented investment groups and activists. He is a close follower of Warren Buffett and his investment approach. He runs the firm by taking a “Buffett” approach to small cap stocks.

His daughter, Abigail Zimmerman, works alongside him at Lowell Capital. She earned her B.A. in Business Administration at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles and has worked with Jim for the last several years. She assists in the generation of new ideas, administrative duties, research of small and medium cap companies, and detailed due diligence on potential investments.

The goal is one of absolute return rather than relative return, and we continue this long-term investment objective of compounding assets between 10 and 20 percent per year without great turnover, thereby realizing a minimum amount of realized gains and net investment income.

MOI: In choosing your investors and communicating with them, what considerations have you found most important?

Jim and Abigail: Our investor base generally includes high net worth individuals and some family office investors. Over time, we have also had some institutional type investors. We fit well with investors who have a long-term orientation. Our typical hold period is generally two to three years for our investment positions. Our focus is first on capital protection and second on capital growth through attractive risk-reward opportunities. We have performed well over many years and through several market environments and cycles. Our goal is to prudently grow investors’ capital over time by with attractive risk-reward opportunities. We seek to be highly transparent with our investor base including detailed discussions of recent investment positions and our overall view of the market environment. Patience is essential for good long-term investment results.

MOI: How do you define your investable universe and how do you generate ideas?

Jim and Abigail: Our investable universe is generally North America, with some focus on Western Europe and Australia — all markets which have strong securities law and accounting standards. We are generally focused on smaller cap companies with market caps below $1 billion which are under-followed and/or misunderstood and have limited coverage by research analysts and institutional investors. We try to focus on areas and opportunities that are ignored by other investors which can generate excess returns. We like investment opportunities where we can have direct discussions with senior management to understand their business and capital allocation strategies.

We have highly proprietary sources of investment ideas we have utilized over many years. Our discussions also allow us to build a relationship with management. We look at thousands of investment ideas each year to find just a handful that fit our strict criteria. Through our broad network, we can source new ideas as well as communicate with our extensive contact network of other value investors. We also source ideas through proprietary screens, periodicals, and extensive industry research.

MOI: What are your key stock selection criteria, and what types of businesses have you favored historically?

Jim and Abigail: One of the most important criteria is sustainable free cash flow generation, which is the foundation of our approach to investing. We look for businesses that can sustainably generate large amounts of free cash flow relative to their market values and enterprise values. We have found sustainable free cash flow is one of the most reliable factors in generating attractive long-term investment returns. We also look for businesses that have high returns on invested capital, or where operating income or free cash flow generated is significant relative to the tangible assets invested in the business (net working capital plus net property, plant, and equipment). Businesses with high returns on invested capital tend to generate large amounts of free cash flow.

In terms of risk management, we focus on companies with safe, “Ft. Knox” balance sheets, which often have large amounts of net cash relative to their market values. We believe this greatly reduces risk and gives our investments more time and flexibility to execute their business plans. We mitigate risk wherever possible and maintain low risk investments. We look for highly sustainable and reliable business models, especially those with recurring revenue.

In terms of types of businesses, we invest in simple and reliable business models that we can understand and which we believe can produce predictable results over many years. These have included software companies, IT services companies, business services companies, niche manufacturing companies, niche retailers, and some healthcare companies. We tend to avoid volatile industries such as oil and gas, biotechnology, natural resources, etc.

MOI: What sources of competitive advantage have you found to be most durable?

Jim and Abigail: We are always looking for companies that have a niche good or service that is unique and gives them a sustainable competitive advantage over time. They generally provide a service that is unique or hard for competitors to copy and they are doing something different compared to their competitors. Many investments offer higher value-added services to their customers which make for a “stickier” customer relationship and more recurring-type revenues which we strongly favor. Some investments are uniquely positioned geographically near their customers which makes their goods or services hard to replace. One of our investment mantras is: “Skate to where the puck is going to be”, which reminds us to stay focused on where the business will be in two or three years.

MOI: When it comes to equity analysis, how do you assess the quality and incentives of management? Which CEOs do you admire most?

Jim and Abigail: We do extensive research with the companies we invest in including detailed talks with the management team. We seek management teams who will align with the incentives of shareholders. We like honest and intelligent management teams that are highly focused on driving shareholder value.

One CEO we like and admire would be Steve Sadler of Enghouse Systems in Canada. He is one of the best. Enghouse is a software company in Canada and Sadler is someone who excels at both organic growth with existing operations and inorganic growth with highly accretive acquisitions. He has built a powerhouse software company over time with excellent shareholder returns.

MOI: Would you outline the summary thesis behind one or two of your best ideas at this time?

Jim and Abigail: We will discuss two ideas: New Zealand Media and Entertainment (ASX: NZME) and Celestica (NYSE: CLS).

New Zealand Media and Entertainment

NZME operates as an integrated media and entertainment company in New Zealand. It offers its products through 39 print publications and 9 audio brands, 17 websites, and 19 real estate publications. Its principal brands include The New Zealand Herald, Newstalk ZB, ZM, Watch Me, nzherald.co.nz, and e-commerce platform Grab One. NZME owns the dominant daily newspaper, The New Zealand Herald, and digital news website in New Zealand; the leading radio broadcasting company (with 40% market share), and the #2 digital real estate listing company (One Roof).

NZME has three segments: Publishing, Audio, and One Roof. NZME is aggressively shifting its Publishing segment to a digital-first model, adopting a similar playbook successfully executed by the New York Times (NYT) over the past several years. It is also increasing its market share in radio broadcasting and in digital real estate advertising.

We were impressed with the resiliency of NZME’s business model during a very difficult pandemic environment, and its aggressive cost reductions and cash generation in response to the pandemic. In 2020, despite the pandemic, adjusted EBITDA increased 3% to NZ$67 million and NZME generated NZ$40 million in free cash flow. Digital subscribers increased sharply, and management confirmed that digital (about $200 per year cost) and print subscriptions (about $600 per year cost) were equally profitable to NZME. We believe NZME provides unmatched access and connections to New Zealand’s population of 5m people. We were also attracted to NZME’s “Ft. Knox” balance sheet and highly cash-generative business model.

We originally invested in NZME at about NZ$0.65 per share in late 2020 with about 197 million shares outstanding for a market cap of about NZ$128 million. NZME had net debt of about NZ$55 million for an enterprise value of about NZ$183 million at investment. We expected NZME could generate adjusted EBITDA of close to NZ$70 million for 2021 so we believed NZME was trading at less than 3x adjusted EBITDA when we invested. Further, NZME’s highly cash-generative business model was rapidly reducing its net debt and we expected NZME would be debt-free by year-end 2021. NZME’s business model was not capital intensive, with capital expenditures of about $10 million per year (versus adjusted EBITDA of NZ$60 million to $70 million per year).

We believed NZME could sustainably generate NZ$40 million of free cash flow per year versus an enterprise value at investment of NZ$183 million and that NZME was trading at a free cash flow yield of 20% plus on an unleveraged basis. We believed NZME’s Publishing segment could produce stable results over time as it transitioned to a digital business model, like the highly successful transition of the New York Times (NYT). NZME digital subscribers were growing rapidly and were equally profitable with print subscriptions.

NZME recently completed the sale of Grab One, a non-core asset, for NZ$17 million. As a result, net debt has been reduced to close to zero.

Further, we expect NZME to continue to generate strong cash flows in second half of 2021. We believe NZME will eventually undertake a significant dividend program to drive shareholder value. Additionally, NZME is focused on getting fair compensation from the global platform companies like Google (GOOG) and Facebook (FB) for displaying its proprietary journalistic content on their sites.

We believe as NZME further pays down debt, increases dividends, drives growth through its digital subscription strategy for its Publishing segment, negotiates with global technology platform companies like Facebook (FB) and Google (GOOG), sells non-core assets like Grab One, and grows its revenues and adjusted EBITDA, the market could put a stronger multiple on its business. We believe NZME could reasonably generate adjusted EBITDA of NZ$75 million in 2022 and trade at a 6x multiple for a market cap of about NZ$450 million or NZ$2.25 per share, versus our entry price of about NZ$0.65 per share and the recent market price of about NZ$1 per share. Further, NZME’s dominant media and entertainment position in New Zealand could make it highly attractive to a strategic or financial buyer.

Celestica

CLS is an undervalued Canadian electronics contract manufacturer based in Toronto. CLS provides hardware platforms and supply chain solutions in North America, Europe, and Asia. The Company offers a range of product manufacturing and related supply chain services, including design and development, engineering, supply chain management, new product introduction, component sourcing, electronics manufacturing, and testing. It also provides enterprise-level data communications and information processing infrastructure products, capacitors, microprocessors, resistors, etc. The Company serves a range of industries, including aerospace and defense, industrial, energy, healthcare, capital equipment, and others.

CLS has two segments including Advanced Technology Solutions (ATS) and Connectivity and Cloud Solutions (CCS). In 2021, we believe ATS will be about 40% of revenue and CCS will be about 60% of total revenue. The ATS segment includes aerospace and defense, industrial, health tech, and their capital equipment business. CCS consists of enterprise communications, telecommunications, servers, and storage businesses. CLS’s Hardware Platform Solutions (HPS) is within the CCS segment.

CLS’s shares recently traded at about $8.50 with about 127 million shares outstanding for a market cap of about $1.1 billion. CLS has a “Ft. Knox” balance sheet today with net debt close to zero. The Company has a total enterprise value (EV) of about $1.1 billion. LTM EBITDA is about $314 million and we expect free cash flow (FCF) for 2021 to be $100 million or more. CLS recently traded at about 3.5x EBITDA and a 10% unleveraged free cash flow yield.

We believe the market is underestimating the quality of CLS business despite its strong ROIC due to its low profit margins. We believe as CLS revenue continues to shift towards higher margin and longer lifecycle industrial verticals, its valuation multiples could increase. CLS is gradually shifting its business towards its higher margin ATS segment and HPS vertical. Further, CLS exited a low margin relationship with Cisco and the loss of these revenues has been obscuring CLS revenue growth at its core business segments.

CLS has a long-standing reputation in the aerospace and defense market and is one of the leading EMS providers for the vertical. The pandemic greatly disrupted the aerospace market. Despite this, CLS believes aerospace revenue has stabilized and will grow sequentially from here.

Electronic manufacturing services (EMS) businesses have tended to trade at low margins due to their low margins. However, most of their cost of goods sold are variable, with the majority of that being pass-through raw material costs, which is important in a rising cost environment. This has enabled CLS to consistently generate double-digit ROIC and strong cash flow despite low operating margins.

Further, there has been significant improvement in the EMS competitive environment over the past few years. Over the last few years, the EMS industry has placed a greater focus on margins and cash flow versus revenue growth, leading to a more disciplined pricing environment and, thus, higher ROIC’s and margins.

We expect CLS to grow revenues in 2022 to $6 billion or more with adjusted EBITDA of $350 million and adjusted EPS of $1.35 or more. We believe as CLS expands into its higher-margin and higher value-added segments and shows improved stability due to long-term, high value-added relationships with its customers, that CLS could trade for 6x adjusted EBITDA, which would result in a market cap of $2.1 billion with net debt of zero or a share price of about $16 per share, versus the recent price of about $8.50 per share. Further, we believe CLS strong competitive niches could be attractive to a strategic or financial purchaser.

MOI: How do you think about the art of valuing a business? To what extent do industry-specific considerations or industry comparables play a role, and to what extent do you focus on “shareholder earnings” or free cash flow?

Jim and Abigail: In terms of valuing a business, we focus heavily on free cash flow generation which is generally already happening and may accelerate imminently. We don’t want to have to look too far out into the future for free cash flows and prefer businesses which are currently generating free cash flow which is sustainable but being undervalued or underappreciated for some reason.

We like to compare our investments to the alternative of holding cash or risk-free bonds, like U.S. ten-year treasuries near 1.5% currently. We are generally targeting investments that we believe have a free cash flow yield of 10% or greater and we look at this on an unleveraged basis, or free cash flow to enterprise value. We feel if we have an investment with a sustainable 10%+ free cash flow yield, as compared to the ten-year U.S. treasury at 1.5%, this provides a large margin of safety for our investments. We define free cash flow as cash from operations less maintenance capital expenditures, so literally the cash flowing into the company each year.

We don’t really focus too much on comparable companies but rather on absolute returns where we believe we can make mid to high double digit returns over an extended period.

We like good businesses with low expectations. In terms of low expectations, our investments generally have valuations which are low, and this helps reduce risk. The market does not expect much from the business in the future or is worried about current earnings or free cash flow sharply declining. These may also be situations where a business is simply misunderstood or undiscovered. We strongly agree with Joel Greenblatt’s quote: “Stocks are not pieces of paper that bounce around. They are ownership shares of businesses that we value and then try to buy at a discount. So that’s value investing. Figure out what a business is worth and pay a lot less.” This is what we aim to do.

MOI: How do you strike the right balance between being concentrated in your best ideas while remaining sufficiently diversified to keep downside risks under control? How does short selling fit into your portfolio management approach?

Jim and Abigail: We generally limit our investment in individual companies to about 5% to 7% of our capital at cost. We read and research thousands of investment ideas each year to reduce them down to 15 to 20 investments that have our required characteristics – “Ft. Knox” balance sheets, large and sustainable free cash flow yields, simple and understandable business model, sustainable competitive niche or advantage, management team focused on driving shareholder value, etc. Ideas that “work” can double or triple or more, while with ideas that don’t work, we can generally get most of our capital back over time. We don’t like to bet too much on any one company. Also, with a diversified group of investments, we tend to hold those investments that are working longer and give them more time to create shareholder value.

On short selling, here again, we try to minimize risk and generally keep our individual positions to 0.5% to 1% of capital at cost. We typically keep our short positions to 5 to 10 positions total and use them to provide downside protection to our overall portfolio, as well as to monitor how extreme market valuations are getting and how “frothy” the overall market may be.

MOI: You have achieved enviable investment returns while periodically holding substantial amounts of cash. How do you think about the right level of cash in the portfolio?

Jim and Abigail: Our cash levels are driven by the investment opportunity set we find in the marketplace and by our assessment of the overall risk-reward position of the market. We believe holding a significant portion of cash reduces the overall risk to our portfolio and positions us to take advantage of new opportunities as we find and research them.

Our investment results have been achieved with an average net cash position of 20% to 30%, although we have reduced our net cash position to about 20% in recent months based on the opportunity set of investments we have encountered. We avoid the use of leverage and, on the contrary, generally maintain a significant cash position, and we believe this has reduced the risk to our capital.

MOI: Which one or two recent books have given you new insights into the art of investing?

Jim and Abigail: We recently reread a couple of classic books on investing. Poor Charlie’s Almanack, about Charlie Munger, and Margin of Safety, written by Seth Klarman, a long time ago. Munger is a great source of investment insights and one of our favorite lines of his is: “you make money not in the buying or the selling but the waiting” – we think this is so true for successful investing. Klarman is obviously one of the greatest investors of all time and his focus on absolute investment returns and on not losing money is a great reminder for us in our work.

download printable version

Jim Zimmerman is founder and portfolio manager of Lowell Capital Value Partners, LP, successor fund to Lowell Capital Fund, L.P. Jim managed Lowell Capital Fund L.P. from 2003 to 2015 employing a proprietary strategy laser-focused on smaller and/or misunderstood companies with large, sustainable free cash flow yields and “Ft. Knox” balance sheets. He generated a compound annual return significantly exceeding the HFRI Equity Hedge Index and the S&P 500 Total Return Index over this period, despite holding a significant net cash position (~30%) for most of this period. Jim has over 25 years of investment banking and investment management experience in a variety of industries and has been involved with several billion dollars of investments. Jim graduated with a BA with high honors in economics from Princeton University in 1980 and an MBA from Stanford Business School in 1984. He worked at Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc., 1984 to 1990, serving in the Corporate Finance Department and multiple other investment banks from 1990 to 2003.

Abigail Zimmerman works alongside her father at Lowell Capital. Abigail earned her B.A. in Business Administration at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles and has worked with Jim for the last several years. She assists in the generation of new ideas, administrative duties, research of small and medium cap companies, and detailed due diligence on potential investments.

The content of this website is not an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security. The content is distributed for informational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice or a recommendation to sell or buy any security or other investment, or undertake any investment strategy. There are no warranties, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or results obtained from any information set forth on this website. BeyondProxy’s officers, directors, employees, and/or contributing authors may have positions in and may, from time to time, make purchases or sales of the securities or other investments discussed or evaluated herein.
MOI Global