Much awaited session at Kolkata by Utpal Seth, Rare Enterprises, on "Dimensions of Mistakes in Investing", to be moderated by Varun Goenka.
#MAW
Outcomes don't define mistakes. They are known through a process of deep introspection & multiple iterations. The opportunity cost of not embracing mistakes is very high.
Type 1 (didn't buy): Bajaj Finance
Type 1.5 (didn't buy enough/sold partly): CRISIL
Type 2 (bought incorrectly): A2Z Infra Engineering
Type 1 (Didn't sell right): Bilcare Limited
Type 1.5 (didn't sell enough): Praj Industries
Type 2 (Sold too early): Relaxo Footwear
These hurt much more, and they have had much to learn from these.
A: Learning attitude and adaptability. Hopes to have a learning attitude to the last day, and ensure that it's not an 'ivory tower learning' - it's important to implement and execute (hence adaptability and resilience).
A: Buy decisions need not be at one point in time. Gradually build conviction - and continue buying - even if at higher levels. Refers to @mjmauboussin 's Probability adjusted Investing.
More from All
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?