In this week’s pod, we dip into the mailbag to answer some listener questions on high valuation companies and diversification across asset classes. We also goggle at the madness of NFTs and talk about when it’s the right vs wrong time to sell.
If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe to the Telescope Investing podcast at Spotify, or on your podcast platform of choice
Transcript
Albert: Hi, this is Albert.
Luke: And this is Luke.
Albert: Today is Monday the 13th of September.
Luke: Welcome to the Telescope Investing podcast.
Intro
Luke: Hey, Albert, I think it’s about time to field a few listener questions. The mailbag is getting a little full and we’ve got a couple of good ones from some of our long-time subscribers. But one thing I wanted to open today’s episode with was a bit of a conversation about Katrina’s Tesla.
Albert: Why, what happened to her car?
Luke: It updated itself and I was very excited on Saturday night when I got the notification ‘new software incoming’, and I was really hoping we were about to get some version of FSD 10, which has just gone live at the same time in the US.
Albert: Oh wow. I saw some videos of that over the weekend and it was quite impressive.
Luke: It’s definitely coming on. It looks leagues better than the software that’s currently appearing to run in my car. Unfortunately, Katrina didn’t seem to get FSD 10, just more incremental improvements, but the software available to Tesla owners in the US now looks amazing watching some of these YouTube videos.
Albert: Well, for context, what’s your car able to do right now?
Luke: We’re it’s got all the same hardware. It’s a Model 3 post-April 2020, so it’s got hardware version 3, so that should be enough for it to run the latest software. In the US now, they’ve switched away from using radar. They’re just not using those sensors, Katrina’s car has radar sensors in it, and they switched to vision only, which was always Musk’s goal, because, hey, like humans walk around with two eyes, right? And we can navigate the world perfectly well. His view is the car should be able to do the same thing.
Albert: Why not use both vision and radar, and use both together? Wouldn’t that give you a better picture of the surroundings?
Luke: And that’s been a big argument against this move, but Musk’s view is, I guess, they can cut costs massively by eliminating the radar capability from the car, and he thinks they can do just as well with just vision. And it kind of makes sense, again, because that’s what we get with. Unless you’ve got bat sensors.
Albert: I hope that night vision is better than most humans’ night vision.
Luke: But let’s talk a little bit about what the car can now do. It’s almost full self-driving. If you see some of the videos, and I saw some pretty cool ones recorded just in the last 24 hours of excited drivers having their cars ferry them from point to point with zero intervention. Like you still got to touch the steering wheel every minute or so just to say, I’m here, I’m paying attention, but the car is effectively driving itself and you don’t have to take over.
Albert: Yeah, the impression I got from most of the videos is that the car now drives more confidently. In fact, it was so confident in its driving that some of the drivers, the human drivers, were actually scared, scared of how fast the car was going.
Luke: Yeah, I saw some pretty cool ones. I saw an interesting one of a famous street in San Francisco called Lombard street, and it’s this tiny, twisty, windy, super-incline hill. And watching this guy take his Tesla down it on Autopilot, it was quite impressive. It crept down at five miles an hour but very confident navigating these tiny little terms. And I think the guy had taken every other version of the software down there over the last few months and it had never navigated it successfully without an intervention. And now the software can do that.
Albert: Oh, I’ve been to Lombard street. I have a nice photo of it when I went to San Francisco, maybe what, five, six years ago. Yeah. I love San Francisco.
Luke: It’s a great city. You got to watch out you don’t get mowed down by an autonomous Tesla next time you visit.
But, you know, one interesting thing I did see as well. Some guy who was a bit tech-aware was watching his car on his network at home on his router. And the day after he had the software update and did a drive, the car uploaded 50 gigs of data to Tesla. So this is actually FSD 10 seeing what’s happening in the real world and then providing video and telemetry back to Tesla so that they can run it through their AI network and improve the software iteratively.
Albert: I know there’s been some criticism of Tesla calling this full self-driving when in fact, it is only level two in the self-driving classification, right? But what do you think? Do you think they’re far ahead of other companies?
Luke: Yeah, absolutely. Definitely far ahead of other companies. Are they close to level five autonomy? Like, no way. Actually, something popped up in my calendar recently. I made a bet with a good buddy about five years ago, and he’s a real petrol-head. He owns about 10 different cars – Ferrari’s, Porsche’s, all sorts of things. And I remember this bet, we’re in the pub in Canary Wharf and I bet him that five years to the day, I will be able to summon my Tesla, which I didn’t own at the time, and it would come from home, pick me up in the Wharf, and take me home again. And so this bet is coming due. I’m certain I’m going to lose it. I’m going to owe Paul a night of free beers, but I’m happy to double down on that bet. The next five years, I reckon I’ll be claiming the win.
Albert: It sounds like a long time, Luke, but I don’t think five years is that long in terms of a self-driving car. I’ll be surprised if you win that bet.
Luke: Okay. You want to take the bet too?
Albert: No, I’m not a gambler, Luke. I’ve been in this situation too many times, Luke, where you make a bet with me and I lose.
Luke: Well, this is what I’m relatively confident about. If you want to have the bet, it’s out there for you.
Albert: Well, as a Tesla shareholder, I do hope that this FSD will progress to the stage that you’re talking about. I think a lot of Tesla’s market value now is based upon that.
Luke: Yeah, I mean, the is getting into all sorts of other things with energy, solar, but you’re right. A lot of the hype around the valuation, perhaps, is associated with this robo-taxi idea. The fact that there might be a global fleet of autonomous Teslas prowling the streets and competing with Uber at some point in the future.
Albert: It’ll be funny if their Tesla bot ends up driving your car instead of the car driving itself.
Luke: Well, what do you make of the Tesla bot? I don’t know if you’ve seen that. Basically, a humanoid robot with FSD software in its head designed to navigate the home and perform basic menial chores.
Albert: Well at the moment, it’s not a robot, it’s a person in a latex suit, right?
Luke: Who’s a very skilled dancer, I agree. But the concept makes sense. Basically, that sci-fi vision of a robot, and they’re doing so much work now on pushing the boundaries of AI research to get the car to work. You can’t imagine it’s that much of a hurdle to get the robot to navigate the home in the same way that the car navigates the streets.
Albert: The question I have is that what do you want that robot in your home to do? Because we have machines that automate a lot of housework already, dishwashers, washing machines. What is the robot supposed to do?
Luke: I guess you’ve then got one general-purpose tool to control all the others.
Albert: I don’t think it’s that much work to press a button on my washing machine.
Luke: Well, you’ve got to load the laundry. And, actually, that’s probably a good example of a simple menial chore to go collect the laundry from one part of the house, put it in the machine, and activate the machine. Then maybe that is a use case.
Albert: Personally, I’m sceptical, but I don’t know. I don’t know.
Luke: It saves Chloe from having to handle your dirty underwear. Surely it’s a good thing.
Albert: Well, she doesn’t, I handled them myself!
Luke: That’s probably enough about Tesla. Should we get to some listener questions?
Albert: Sure, Luke.
Dot-com Crash 2.0
Luke: We thought we’d use today’s episode to answer a couple of listener questions, and it was prompted by a really interesting comment we got on the Telescope Investing website from a new subscriber, Rabatra. Rabatra took a look at our 2021 model portfolio and had something quite interesting.
Albert: Yeah, Rabatra wrote on our website, “Most of these companies are speculatively valued at the moment. Won’t these get clobbered when dot-com crash 2.0 comes. Also, what is your prediction in relation to when dot-com [crash] 2.0 is coming?”
Luke: Right. Interesting. Interesting in so many different ways. Rabatra, first off, thanks for the comment. We love hearing from our subscribers. To kick us off, to some extent, I suppose, volatility is the price of admission when you’re investing in growth stocks. If you sit on the sidelines waiting for the next crash, you’re far more likely to erode your wealth than dollar-cost averaging your way into building a portfolio as we recommend on this website.
Albert: But after saying that, Luke, I really do think the recent tech boom of the past few years is very different from the one that happened 20 years. Back then, the companies had no revenues and yet had these ridiculous valuations, and they just had to mention the word internet in their S-1 filings for the price to go sky-high. And most companies at that time were vaporware. While some of them turned into big winners, but it was really difficult to know which one was which. For example, if you managed to buy Amazon at the time and you held onto the stock, you struck gold. However, if you bought Pets.com, not so much.
Luke: Yeah, exactly. Like, we’re not trying to say those fateful words, this time it’s different, but many of today’s high-flying tech companies have got fast-growing revenue and customers, like real revenue and real customers. So it’s not to say that picking the winners is any easier, but for the most part, valuations are high, but they’re based on real fundamentals.
Albert: And we cannot say that there will never be another dot-com crash because you never know, but I do think that the tech sector has matured. And it’s reasonable to say that it’s an essential part of the modern economy, and you could also argue that tech is not so much a sector, but an aspect of all businesses. For example, is Amazon a tech company, or is it in commerce? Is Square in tech or in financial services? Is Fiverr in tech or in freelancing? And one more is Magnite in tech or in advertising?
Luke: I totally get that and they are great examples. Every company is tech these days. Tech is like steam and iron of hundreds of years ago, right? This is the foundation upon which all businesses are built. But I do have a quite amusing anecdote as well. I read just a week ago, a Jeff Bezos comment to a staff meeting early in the days of Amazon where he said, Amazon is a software company, not a retailer. He was definitely thinking they were tech.
Albert: Oh, right, I didn’t know that. Well, these days I think most people would regard Amazon as being in the commerce industry.
Luke: Absolutely.
Albert: Well, apart from their AWS business, which is more tech.
Luke: So, can you think of an example of something that probably is the dot-com bubble 2.0, as Rabatra suggested?
Albert: Well, if I had to name a modern-day analogy. I would say that it’s crypto. Well, I have to say sorry to all the crypto-bulls, and it’s not to say that crypto is a fad or it will go away, and in the same way that tech has matured from the dot-com crash, it’s possible and actually quite likely that crypto will too, but I do think that there’s a lot of hype around it.
Luke: Yeah, I think crypto has got a place in a balanced portfolio. I’ve got some Ethereum and a few other minor coins, but you’re right. There are faddy aspects to it as well, particularly, like some of this stuff around NFTs. I got to say, I just don’t get it.
Albert: Well, I read recently that there’s a site where you can buy, sell, race, and breed virtual horses, and this kind of makes sense if the races have real money behind them. But I also saw a story that the latest craze is something called Crypto Punks, which are these lo-res bitmaps that are sold as NFTs, and some of them are being exchanged for millions of dollars. That I don’t understand.
Luke: Like, I remember something called Crypto Kitties from years and years ago. Maybe it’s like the latest incarnation of that. People are just kind of collecting these things, but you’re right. The valuations of some of these are wild. I did have a look, actually. The two highest-priced CryptoPunks went for over seven and a half million dollars each. And the total value of all lifetime sales is literally a hair short of a billion dollars.
Albert: I really don’t understand this. If you haven’t seen these CryptoPunks, have a look. These look like things that you could create on a home computer 30 years ago. I’m pretty sure I could create one myself. Obviously, one that I create will be worth $7 million.
Luke: Yeah, I don’t get it. We had a bit of a debate pre podcast about whether this is just art. Like, people spend a lot of money on art and they collect it and they enjoy it. I don’t know. I don’t see the intrinsic value of these little digital bitmaps of faces.
Albert: Yeah, I don’t understand either, Luke. They’re a new asset class and we don’t fully understand them.
Luke: I think the technology kind of makes sense. And I suppose you could use like this NFT paradigm to track physical assets like houses or art, like real things. And the NFT is like your digital representation of your ownership. That sort of makes sense to me, but the rest of it doesn’t make sense to me.
Albert: Remember, when you own the NFT, you don’t have ownership of the copyright for many of these things. So if you don’t have ownership of the copyright, what do you actually own? That’s what I don’t understand.
Luke: Fair enough.
Thoughts on diversification
Albert: Moving on to our next listener question. We got one on Twitter from James Madelin, and he asked, “What are your thoughts on diversification? Both in a portfolio, for example, sectors, and for all your investible wealth. Do you own bonds or do you go all-in on equities?”
Luke: So, I’m pretty much all-in on equities. I had a couple of investment properties and I’m trying to exit that at the moment. I sold one in the UK and we just recently disposed of one in Spain. So I’m now basically a hundred percent stocks, although I’ve got a defined benefit pension as well, which is kind of my backup plan if my stock portfolio goes completely up the wazoo. I’ve got no bonds and commodities. I think the returns on those products are poor, and I don’t feel personally the need to manage my risk in that way.
I guess over the years, I’ve become very comfortable with volatility and periodic drawdowns. Actually, in fact, I generally look forward to those periods. It’s a chance to pick up some bargains.
Albert: I agree, Luke. I don’t own any bonds or commodities either. I’m also a hundred percent in equities, more or less. And I use lower-volatility dividend stocks instead of bond investments. I know that they don’t exactly behave in the same, but I’m willing to forego the relative safety of bond investments for the possibility for some capital appreciation while receiving passive income from the dividends. Maybe I’ll want bonds while I’m closer to retirement or when I’m retired, but I think I’ll mostly be in stocks even then.
And I think of commodities more as trading instruments rather than long-term investments. I had a look at the price chart of gold versus stocks over the last a hundred years, and in that time, gold has returned around 9,000%. Sounds pretty good until you realize that the S&P 500 has returned around 67,000%.
Luke: Isn’t that gold anecdote is interesting as well? I saw a stat the other day, and honestly, I don’t know if this is true or not, but evidently, gold price is in a bit of a hole at the moment and it was supposed to be an inflation hedge, but inflation is on the horizon. So kind of this hedging instrument isn’t actually doing what it was supposed to do.
Albert: I think gold is a special case because gold, as opposed to most commodities, is seen as an investment. Most commodities, their prices go up and down based on supply and demand based on real-world usage. For example, I don’t think many people invest in pork bellies as a long-term investment.
Luke: They get pretty rotten if you try to store them, right? Plus, can imagine having all that bacon. Bacon.
Albert: Even though I don’t diversify across bonds and commodities, I would say that I am diversified in my equity investments being spread across different geographies, different sectors, and also different company sizes. I don’t feel overly exposed to any particular company or sector.
Luke: Yeah, there seemed to be like two schools of thought on diversification. There are those who advocate for concentration and those that recommend diversification. I suppose a concentrated portfolio would be one with, I don’t know, less than 10 positions. I saw a tweet from Motley Fool co-founder, Tom Gardner, a few weeks ago that suggested investors should own 25-plus stocks, and predictably, half the replies said 25 was too many and half said it was not enough.
Albert: Yeah, I saw that as well, and personally, I gravitate towards the diversification side as no matter how confident you are in a company, anything is possible and your investments can take a tumble. For example, key personnel leaving, PR mistakes, supply chain disruptions, new technology appearing making your technology obsolete, accounting fraud, dud products, and one that we’ve covered recently, being hacked.
Luke: I guess on this question of diversification, it all comes down to personal preference and risk tolerance. I think 25 is a reasonable starting point. I think you get most of the benefits of diversification with 20-plus stocks, and any more potentially marginal. I suppose in my own personal portfolio, I go through periods of expansion and contraction.
I guess I’m actually pretty expanded at the moment. I’ve probably got too many positions to be able to track them comfortably. I’m definitely feeling I’m at the point where I should start to sell out some of my positions to try and get back to a slightly more concentrated portfolio. I remember doing that the first time, about six or seven years ago. And I looked at my investing history and realized that my bigger investments at the time were performing better than my smaller investments. And I think that gave me a bit of insight into my mindset at the time of buying them, and maybe the things I was more confident in did seem to be outperforming.
So I don’t know if it was the right inference to draw, but I kind of took the view that, okay, maybe I’m making good-quality decisions here. And so I contracted quite hard and I went through a real period of a couple of years where I tried to get down to 90% of my investible assets in my top 10 of stocks. And I pretty much got there, but I’ve definitely drifted way away from that. So maybe it’s time to start trimming out some of the fat.
Albert: I think switching between concentration and diversification is natural, and depending on the market situation and your own objectives. And I saw a tweet recently that said something on the lines of use concentration when you want to build wealth and use diversification when you want to protect it.
Luke: Yeah, definitely. One of the strongest arguments for having more stocks, in general, is that you want to increase your chances of catching those breakout stocks, that 10x or 100x or more. It’s difficult to predict which companies will do that ahead of time, so I guess you need a higher number of bets to try and catch that big winner.
Of course, you shouldn’t pick stocks at random. You should still be selective. But with 4,000 US stocks and over 40,000 international stocks, there’s a lot to choose from.
Albert: And as for needing concentration to build wealth, one of the more successful fund managers ever was Peter Lynch whose Fidelity Magellan Fund averaged a 29% annual return over 13 years from 1977 to 1990. And this fund contained up to 1,400 stocks.
Luke: That’s a lot to track.
Albert: Well, he had the team behind them to do that though. It’s understandable that individual investor cannot keep track of 1,400 stocks. Another way to view it is that if you have a deep understanding of the companies you invest in, you may be more comfortable owning a smaller number of positions or at least having most of your money in your top picks.
Since we’ve been doing this podcast, my own understanding of the companies that we covered is higher than it was previously, and I’m less averse to holding larger positions in some of the stocks. And just like you, Luke, I’m actively trying to reduce the number of stocks in my portfolio.
Luke: Well, maybe we should both hold each other to account on this a little bit. See if we can find weak points in each other’s portfolios where we can focus a bit more.
Managing drawdowns
Luke: Let’s pick up the last listener question for this week, also from James Madelin. James says, “How do you tell between a normal drawdown and a broken investment thesis that means sell?” James says, “This point took me ages to work out.” Well, James, we talk about doing your own due diligence to build your conviction in an investment. I think if you understand your investments and why you’ve invested, you’re more likely to hold when the markets do take it downturn.
Albert: Yeah, look at your investment thesis. We do these one-pagers that summarize our research in the companies that we follow, and we publish this on our website if you’re interested. And in these one-pagers, we have red flags and green flags to help us see more clearly why we are invested in a stock and the risks that might be there.
Luke: Yeah, and then as the story plays out, and if the stock does take a bit of a battering, we can check in on our green and red flags and see if did a risk materialise and that’s the reason why that stock fell. Or, actually, is it just a general movement in the market? So you could do a comparison to competitors for that stock in the same sector, or even just look at the whole market and see if there’s something general going on, like the next coronavirus pandemic. If it’s something general, I think you don’t have to worry about your company. If it’s something specific to the company though, maybe that’s a prompt to at least reassess the investment.
Albert: Yeah, sometimes the whole market drops and it gives investors an opportunity to buy good companies at lower prices. Often, nothing has changed about the company and they will continue to do well or even better in some situations. And the only thing that has changed is the public appetite for risk.
Luke: Yeah, I’ve got two examples of that myself, right? I’ve got a tendency to inaction. I think I’ve said on previous podcasts, almost characterize it as laziness, but actually, it’s me trying to avoid doing anything. Because every time you take an action, buy or sell, it costs you a little bit in spread. And I’ve got two examples where I planned to sell, I think, Beyond Meat and also Stitch Fix. But I delayed. I thought the thesis might have been damaged. I delayed and sat on it though, and then they both recovered pretty big-time. And actually, I have exited my Stitch Fix position and I’m thinking about exiting my Beyond position. But again, that tendency to inaction is preventing me from doing it right.
Albert: And one example where I have sold based on a broken thesis is my investment in TripAdvisor. I bought this several years ago, expecting TripAdvisor to be a portal where people go to research their trips and then buy the tickets for that trip on the website. As it turned out, that didn’t really have. People go to the website for the research, but then leave and go somewhere else to buy directly from the airline or from the hotel. And TripAdvisor is struggling to monetize their model. That’s just to illustrate that we’re not saying to never sell.
And there’s a popular FinTwit personality, Puru Saxena, and he tweeted recently, “Selling is super important. There’s no points for loyalty in the investment business. When a business has deteriorated or the original thesis has been proven wrong by facts, in brackets operating results, then those shares must be sold pronto. Ego has no place in the investing game. Facts are stronger than ego.”
Luke: Great point by Puru. I think maybe there’s a bit of dripping irony, Puru talking about ego. He’s got himself in some Twitter wars with a number of other names. His point here is an important one. And maybe it goes back to the comment on diversification earlier as well, like, the benefit of not being heavily invested in property, being invested in stocks, is you can flip and move your money around very, very quickly, very easily.
And I think the benefit of our approach at Telescope Investing, Albert, is we don’t specialize in any particular sector. We look at the whole market. We follow many mega-trends. And if we think a trend is fading or just not going to deliver the results that we hoped for, it’s very easy for us to be agile and move our investments out of that trend and into something else. And so as an individual company investor, I think you should maximize that advantage by selling when it’s appropriate to do so.
Albert: But our point is that you should check that the investment thesis is really broken and don’t sell based on just price movement, especially around earnings. Unless of course, you’re a short-term trader and not an investor, because it’s only human nature to jump on the bandwagon and price movement on earnings tend to overshoot in both directions. Stocks are often overbought on good earnings and oversold on bad ones.
Luke: And look, remember sometimes great quality businesses take a substantial battering. Do you remember when Netflix dropped over 70% when they announced they were splitting out their DVD business into a separate company called Qwikster, I think back in 2010, 2011. The stock’s up 50 times since then, one of the best-performing stocks in the last decade. And look, congratulations if you bought in 2002 and held on. Like, you’ve realized a return of 43,000%.
Albert: Unfortunately, I didn’t buy in 2002. I got in a little bit later than that, around 2008. And I remember very clearly the Qwikster debacle as I was a shareholder at the time.
Luke: Same here.
Albert: But in hindsight, Netflix was bang on the money on streaming and they were thinking far ahead of everybody else, and we just didn’t realize it at the time. Actually, I checked on their numbers recently, even though it’s a tiny fraction of the 209 million subscribers, I was shocked to see that over 2 million people still use their DVD service. I don’t even have a DVD player in my house.
Luke: Yeah, same, I haven’t had one for years, but I guess some people maybe don’t have streaming.
Albert: Or you’re living in the middle of the North Pole and there’s no wi-fi access.
Luke: But as long as you can get the post, otherwise your DVDs are going to struggle to get to you.
Albert: I think if you live in the North Pole, you’re getting a new DVD about twice a year.
Luke: But luckily, the Netflix business model doesn’t charge you for your late fees. If you have rented from Blockbuster, you’d be in big trouble in the North Pole!
Albert: Actually, recently Netflix announced that they are moving into video games, and personally, I’m sceptical about this move given the more experienced players in the video games market, but given their track record, I should give them a chance to prove I’m wrong.
Luke: I hadn’t read that. What, they’re like leasing games, like renting games out, or they’re making their own games?
Albert: They’re making their own games based on their own IP. For example, they’re making a Stranger Things game. And these games, they say, are going to be available to all subscribers and they’re starting with mobile games.
Luke: Interesting. Well, you know, why not I suppose, another string to the bow and the IP is important. They’re spending so much money on creating new shows.
Albert: And linking back to our earlier question, one way to handle drawdowns is actually diversification and position sizing. Maybe you’d be more willing to give a company a chance to overcome any setbacks if it’s only 2-3% of your portfolio instead of 20-30.
Luke: Yeah, actually, it makes me think of a conversation we had just the other day. We were both lamenting Fastly and the battering it’s taken and it’s shrunk down to less than 1% of my portfolio. And I remember the conversation with you as, like, should we have sold this a while ago? And I’m like shrugs, right? It’s less than 1%. I can’t even be bothered to worry about it.
Albert: I’m willing to give Fastly a chance to grow out of this. Maybe we’re wrong and maybe the market’s wrong, and in two or three years time they’ve recovered. And being half a percent of my portfolio, it doesn’t really bother me. Obviously, I would feel differently if it was 10% of my portfolio.
Actually, this reminds me of a tweet I saw recently from Motley Fool co-founder, Tom Gardner, who tweets quite often and one tweet I saw that hit me was “If a 50% decline in the value of any stock you own would really hit, your own too much of it.” and that applies to our Fastly position. It did drop around 50% and it doesn’t bother us, and if it did, we’d definitely own too much.
Luke: I suppose if my Shopify position decreased by 50%, that would hurt pretty bad, but I think I’m now resigned to the fact that I’m just going to ride this one. As the Wall Street Bets crowd might say, to the moon. It’s growing back into 20% of my portfolio. I’m going to let it run I think this time, rather than trimming it and trimming it.
Albert: Luke, if your Shopify position dropped by 50%, you would have to delay your retirement plans.
Luke: Yeah, perhaps. But if it means I can buy that private island a few years sooner, let’s go for it!
Albert: I don’t know how much Shopify you have but a private island is not that cheap, you know.
Luke: Tobi Lutke’s a very generous man.
Quote
Luke: Should we wrap up today’s shorter episode? We don’t really have a key takeaway for today, but I would like to close it out with a pretty relevant investing quote, and this time, from investing legend, Warren Buffett. Warren said, “Wide diversification is only required when investors do not understand what they’re doing.”
Albert: And who am I to argue with the world’s greatest investor?
Wrap
Albert: Well, that’s all for this week. Thanks for listening.
Luke: If there’s a future topic you’d like us to cover, you can message us on Twitter, I’m @LukeTelescope.
Albert: And I’m @AlbertTelescope, or you can email us at feedback@telescopeinvesting.com.
Luke: If you enjoyed this episode, you can find more content at our website, telescopeinvesting.com, where you can leave us a comment or a review.
Albert: And if this is your first time tuning it, perhaps consider subscribing to the website so that you’re the first to hear about new articles and episodes as they drop.
Luke: Thanks, Albert.
Albert: Thanks, Luke.
