I agree. This was a such a great podcast

I am unimpressed. He thinks his DCF valuation is holier than thou. Ultimately DCF is as good as his assumptions. No wonder he lost his shirt by shorting Tesla. He mentioned Tesla 10 times in the interview and got so many fundamental facts wrong.

@@mydutube which fundamental facts did he get wrong exactly?

@@Klayhamn All the nonsense about coal is burned to generate electricity so BEVs generate more emissions than ICE. That has been debunked. The latest study published by Yale said BEVs have cleaner life-time emissions even when including emissions from supply chain. To add to that, almost all new energy capacity of the world is coming form renewables. China is retiring coal plants and switching to sustainable energy faster than any other country. It's sad that this guy is spreading misinformation hurting the people and ecology to benefit his own pockets. Also, about Porsches margin, Tesla is already at 12% net margin despite growing revenue at 80% and investing heavily in R&D and investing in new production capacity. Porsche's margins peaked at 12% despite being at the peak of their operating leverage. Tesla has a long way to go. The operating leverage of Tesla is just beginning to show. The net margin will be climbing towards 20% during next 4-6 quarters. Toyota comparison is also bad. Toyota is a laggard in two massive sea changes in transportation: BEV and autonomous. Toyota's growth was flat for many years and now trending down slowly. Their ICE business is facing a massive diseconomies of scale. They deserve the valuation of a company with declining fundaments and technology that is at the verge of extinction.

There's several reasons why years of data can be insufficient (and i believe he touches on both of them , to an extent): 1. the first is that it's possible that reality itself changes in a way that makes past patterns no longer relevant in the future. it's POSSIBLE that there is no overreaching pattern that dominates asset pricing across the years. e.g. if the market is truly inefficient then the factors are nothing more than an overfitted model that happens to describe the particular history we experienced. 2. it's possible that the history we have, despite spanning more than 100 years , is simply to short to discover the TRUE overreaching pattern that dominates markets - if such a pattern exists, or - if no pattern exists (and then the "factors" exhibit behavior that is random just like the digits of pie) - you are bound to find SOME things that look like patterns but actually aren't (like the string of 9's in pie's digits). We simply don't know if 100+ years is enough. Maybe we need 900 years of market data to see the full picture? regarding the human patterns, sure - but the long term trends are more reflective of the economy than the market. In the end you have companies who (regardless of how they are priced in the market) either succeed or fail, are either profitable or are not profitable, either grow or don't grow in their revenues and earnings, etc. so, of course that if the economy itself is growing, the stock market would eventually (on a long term perspective) grow with it, but the MARKET is the actual buying and selling of stocks in an attempt to correctly price these companies, and on the short or even the immediate terms it's very possible that it exhibits absolutely NO useful patterns - i.e. - that the market moves RANDOMLY - which is equivalent to the conclusion that it is efficient - i.e. - that it always reflects the totality of information that exists about each stock, and that any price change is only the result of unique information that is added to the mix, information that cannot be truly encapsulated in a consistent way by any formula or "compression"

Buy the dip

It probably was about the importance of dividends. Even Canadians have a politeness limit, and they were forced to edit the 3rd point from the episode.

Found the answer - on Spotify it's not cut. The third criteria is to raise a good family

The benefit of a greater lead time for the post-prod team :)

He actually mentioned that Ark and Tesla are not good to invest in now but he also didn’t give a clear investment strategy other than diversification. The underlying message that I derived from the interview was that historical market data should be used as a guide but not a template. I also have a value tilt but an open mind always helps.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3779481

How was he wrong excactly? It's still priced in such a way that it needs to take over the world and even if it does the returns will be mediocre because taking over the world is already priced in. He is right but you can't time the market. And by the way, the EV bubble has collapsed since this interview. Tesla is still standing strong (for now) but Nio for example (a stock he was short) is down 60-70% from the highs.

I share Profesor's opionion. Cmon paying for a stock whose PE ratio is more than 600. You can only do that and hope.to.suceed in the long haul if you really do not know history of investing very well.

​@@Dra60oN fast forward 6 months, the PE ratio is now 300. Judging hyper growth company with trailing PE is fruitless. Tesla saw tremendous revenue growth combined with steep operating leverage in last two quarter which allowed them to cut PE in half despite doubling the price.